Bombay High Court: A writ petition was filed by the mother of the deceased (‘petitioner’) seeking registration of a first information report(‘FIR’) under the relevant provisions of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Atrocities Act’), against the police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of her son (‘deceased’), who was arrested for protesting against the alleged atrocities committed against Hindus in Bangladesh in 2024.
The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., held that the police failed in their duty by not filing an FIR even after a complaint was submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the registration of the FIR.
Background:
The incident stemmed from a peaceful protest organised by the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha on 10-12-2024 in Parbhani, against atrocities allegedly committed against Hindus in Bangladesh The petitioner alleged that adequate police security was not deployed there despite the antecedents of hate speech. The situation escalated when a person present there vandalized a replica of Indian Constitution, triggering another protest on 11-12-2024, which turned violent. Following this, the police started arresting peaceful protesters by entering their houses, wherein over 50 youths and women, including the deceased, were arrested after beating them.
The deceased, a 35-year-old M.A. B.Ed. and a final year law student of the 5-year course, was among those arrested. The petitioner claimed that the arrest was unlawful and that her son was brutally assaulted while in police custody He was produced before the Magistrate on 12-12-2024 and was taken into police custody for two days where he was brutally assaulted. On 14-12-2024, he was again produced before the Magistrate, in a much worse situation, after which he was transferred to judicial custody. On 15-12-2024, around 06:49 a.m., the deceased passed away in judicial custody. The police informed the petitioner that he died of heart attack.
The petitioner alleged that she was offered Rs 50 lakh for not filing the complaint, but she requested justice. She was also pressurized to perform the last rites in Latur, but they were performed in Parbhani itself. She then lodged a complaint that the deceased died of torture in police custody. Initially, the inquiry was conducted by the local police, but thereafter the State Government ordered the State CID to take up the case.
The final post-mortem report was submitted to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani who after the mandatory inquiry under Section 196 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) submitted it to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Parbhani which was then forwarded to the Registrar of this Court. The Judicial Magistrate First Class had examined many co-accused and the OPD papers and concluded that there was ‘gross violation of human rights’.
It was contended by the petitioner that the deceased and other protestors were falsely charged and he pointed out that in the videos of the protest site, the deceased was keeping calm and there was no overt act on his part to indulge in criminal activity, but still he was arrested and assaulted. He further stated that the CID continued its probe without treating the matter as a cognizable crime and prolonged the investigation.
Apart from the direction to register the FIR, the petitioner also asked the Court to:
- Order criminal action against the police officers responsible,
- Take action for outraging the modesty of women in custody,
- Suspend the officers involved, and
-
Issue proper guidelines for handling custodial death cases after a judicial inquiry.
The respondent’s counsel, however, stated that the deceased complained of chest pain and was taken to the hospital at 06:30 a.m. on 15-12-2024. But he was declared dead at 06:49 a.m. He submitted that an inquiry by CID was still going on and no direction of FIR registration could be given unless the inquiry was complete, and it was concluded that a cognizable offence was made out.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court pointed out that the deceased, when produced before the Magistrate, made no complaint regarding the ill treatment by the police. It was also noted that the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 196 BNSS was very detailed and the report stated that the deceased died of ‘shock following multiple injuries’ and that there were 24 visible injuries caused between few hours to four days before death.
The Court opined that there were prima facie material-on-record i.e., inquest panchanama, postmortem report, report of Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 196 BNSS and the complaint application by the petitioner which concluded that a cognizable office was committed and, therefore, the State ought to have registered the FIR.
The Court referred to Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it was held that when a cognizable offence was disclosed based on a complaint application, the police were duty bound to register the FIR and take up the investigation.
The Court passed an interim order and directed the police to register the FIR based on the complaint application given by the petitioner and to handover the investigation to a police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Court further cleared it out that since the case was at the preliminary stage, for the rest of the prayers, the writ petition would be kept pending and listed the matter for further consideration on 30-7-2025.
[Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 457 of 2025, decided on 4-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Prakash Ambedkar, Advocate i/b M. B. Sandanshiv, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A. B. Girase, Public Prosecutor.
