Summary and Analysis of Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2025 INSC 1100
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2025 INSC 1100
Court: Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8494 of 2025)
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Date of Judgment: September 11, 2025
2. Related Laws and Legal Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and reinforces the mandatory nature of the following legal provisions:
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This is the central provision governing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The Court emphasized that it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR upon receiving information about the commission of a cognizable offence.
Constitution of India, Article 226: The High Court's power to issue writs was discussed, with the Supreme Court clarifying that this power can and should be exercised to remedy a patent injustice and failure of the state machinery, even at a "belated stage".
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The alleged offences, including assault and murder, fell under sections like Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and Sections 324, 325, 326 (various types of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons).
Precedent: Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1: The Supreme Court heavily relied on this landmark Constitution Bench judgment, which laid down the absolute mandate for FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Parties:
Appellant: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif (a minor, represented by his father; victim and alleged eyewitness).
Respondents: The State of Maharashtra and its police officials.Subject Matter: A challenge to the police's failure to register an FIR concerning a brutal assault on the appellant during communal riots and his claim of being an eyewitness to a murder.
History of Litigation:
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking directions to register an FIR and for a fair investigation.
The High Court dismissed the petition, suspecting the appellant's "bonafides" and "ulterior motive".
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and allowed the appeal.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court, in Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1100), delivered a strong rebuke to the police machinery for its dereliction of duty and to the High Court for its failure to protect the rights of a citizen. The core of the judgment is a reaffirmation of the absolute obligation of the police to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.
A. Background of the Case:
The case emerged from communal riots in Akola, Maharashtra, on May 13, 2023. The appellant, then a 17-year-old boy, claimed that while returning home, he witnessed four unknown persons brutally assaulting an auto-rickshaw driver, Vilas Gaikwad, with weapons. The assailants then turned on the appellant, damaged his vehicle, and assaulted him on the head and neck, rendering him unconscious. He was hospitalized with a serious head injury. The appellant later learned that the deceased driver was attacked under a case of mistaken identity (as his auto had a Muslim name sticker) and that he could identify one of the assailants from a politician's flex board.
B. The Core Legal Issues and the Supreme Court's Analysis:
Mandatory Registration of FIR (Section 154 CrPC):
The police claimed they visited the hospital but found the appellant "unfit to speak." They argued that since neither the appellant nor his relatives lodged a formal complaint immediately, no FIR was required. The High Court accepted this and faulted the appellant for the delay.
Supreme Court's Finding: The Court strongly condemned this approach. It held that the police's duty to register an FIR is triggered as soon as information about a cognizable offence is received, irrespective of who provides it. The hospital's Medico-Legal Case (MLC) intimation to the police itself constituted such information. The Court cited the Lalita Kumari case, reiterating that registration of an FIR is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted in such cases. The police's inaction was a "total dereliction of duty."Role of the Superintendent of Police (Section 154(3) CrPC):
The appellant's father sent a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP) on June 1, 2023, after the local police station failed to act.
Supreme Court's Finding: The Court noted that Section 154(3) CrPC provides a remedy where a local police officer refuses to register an FIR. The SP is mandated to either investigate the case himself or direct a subordinate to do so if the information discloses a cognizable offence. The SP in this case, Sandip Ghuge, took no action whatsoever. The Court found this conduct by a senior officer "a cause for great concern."High Court's Approach and Judicial Scrutiny:
The High Court dismissed the petition, suspecting an "ulterior motive" because it was filed after the chargesheet in the murder case had been filed.
Supreme Court's Finding: The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning "surprising" and erroneous. The Court held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is meant to correct such manifest injustices by the state. The failure to register an FIR is a continuing cause of action, and the Court's doors cannot be shut to a victim, especially a minor, on the grounds of delay in such circumstances.Allegations of Bias and Need for Impartial Investigation:
The appellant's case suggested that the police investigation into the murder was biased and deliberately excluded his testimony, possibly because it pointed to a communal motive and assailants from a specific community.
Supreme Court's Finding: The Court expressed deep concern, stating that police officers must "shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise." It found that the police's attempt to attribute motives to the appellant, instead of investigating his claims, was unacceptable.
C. Supreme Court's Directions and Final Order:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued the following mandatory directions:
Registration of FIR and SIT Investigation: The Secretary of the Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities.
Scope of Investigation: This SIT must register an FIR concerning the assault on the appellant and investigate all his allegations, including his eyewitness account of the murder of Vilas Gaikwad and the identity of the assailants.
Disciplinary Action: The Home Secretary must initiate disciplinary action against all erring police officials (including the SP and the local police inspector) for their "patent dereliction of duties."
Police Sensitization: Measures must be taken to instruct and sensitize the police force on their legal obligations under Section 154 CrPC.
Monitoring: The SIT must submit its investigation report to the Supreme Court within three months.
In-depth Analysis:
This judgment is a powerful reiteration of the rule of law and the duty of the police as neutral instruments of the state. The Supreme Court moved beyond the specific facts to address systemic issues: police bias, inertia, and a culture of avoiding FIR registration. By ordering the inclusion of officers from both communities in the SIT, the Court implicitly acknowledged the appellant's allegations of communal bias and ensured the investigation is perceived as fair. The directive for disciplinary action and sensitization is a crucial step towards accountability and reform, signaling that such lapses will have serious consequences. The judgment serves as a stern reminder to both the police and the judiciary that technicalities cannot override the fundamental duty to provide justice to victims of crime.