MLC Intimation Triggers Mandatory FIR and SP’s Duty under Section 154(3) CrPC: Supreme Court Orders SIT and Disciplinary Action for Police Inaction in Communal Riot Context

Introduction

In Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 INSC 1100 (Supreme Court of India, 11 September 2025), the Court confronted a stark question of police neutrality and statutory fidelity during communal unrest. The appellant, a 17-year-old, alleged he was brutally assaulted during the Akola riots on 13 May 2023 and simultaneously witnessed the murderous attack on one Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. Despite a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) intimation and a subsequent written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP), no First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the attack on the appellant. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed his writ petition, suspecting his bona fides and deeming the plea belated, as a chargesheet had already been filed in a related murder case.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that MLC intimation constitutes information of a cognizable offence that mandates FIR registration under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (as applicable at the time), and that the SP had a statutory duty under Section 154(3) to act on the written complaint. In a rare and pointed remedial order—rooted in concerns about bias and dereliction—the Court directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities, ordered disciplinary action against errant officers, and mandated police sensitization on legal duties.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court reaffirmed that when the police receive information disclosing a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC; preliminary inquiry is not permissible, except in limited classes recognized by precedent.
The Court held that receipt of the MLC about the appellant’s hospital admission for “assault with head injury” triggered the duty to register an FIR and to promptly follow up by recording the victim’s statement when medically fit.
The Court censured the High Court’s approach of shifting the burden onto the appellant/relatives and rejecting the claim merely because the police denied recording a hospital statement. The Court underscored that the duty lies with the police, not the victim.
The SP’s failure to act on a written complaint under Section 154(3) CrPC was found to be “a cause for great concern,” evidencing patent dereliction.
Remedial directions: (a) constitution of an SIT of senior officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to register an FIR and investigate the assault on the appellant; (b) initiation of disciplinary proceedings against erring officers; (c) measures to sensitize the police rank-and-file on legal duties. The SIT’s report is to be filed within three months.

Factual Matrix and Procedural Timeline

13 May 2023: Communal riots erupt in Akola; appellant alleges assault near Raj Rajeshwar Setu Bridge and witnesses fatal attack on Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad.
14 May 2023 (1:14 AM): Appellant admitted to Icon Multispecialty Hospital with “assault with head injury”; CT scan indicates subgaleal hematoma and acute subdural hemorrhage.
14 May 2023: General Diary entries record MLC information and that the appellant was unfit to give a statement at that time.
15 May 2023: Appellant claims statement was recorded in hospital when District Collector visited with police.
16 May 2023: Discharge from hospital.
1 June 2023: Written complaints by appellant and father to the Police Station and SP, seeking registration of offences for the assault on the appellant; no FIR is registered.
In the meanwhile, FIR No. 152/2023 concerning the Gaikwad murder is registered and chargesheeted; appellant not recorded as eyewitness therein.
25 July 2024: High Court dismisses the writ petition, questioning motives and citing belatedness.
11 September 2025: Supreme Court allows the appeal; directs SIT and disciplinary action; mandates sensitization.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) Lalita Kumari v. Government Of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1

The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari laid down the seminal rule: registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC where information discloses a cognizable offence; preliminary inquiry is impermissible except in narrowly delineated categories (e.g., matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases involving abnormal delay). Lalita Kumari also directed that the General Diary must reflect all information about cognizable offences, whether leading to FIR or preliminary inquiry.

The Supreme Court in the present case quoted paragraphs 120.1 to 120.8 of Lalita Kumari, using them as the principal legal scaffold to establish that:

The police could not postpone or avoid FIR registration once the MLC information indicated an assault constituting a cognizable offence (e.g., Sections 324/325/326 IPC).
GD entries existed, confirming receipt of MLC information; therefore, statutory duties were activated.
There is no legal warrant to shift responsibility onto the victim/relatives to “pursue” enforcement; the Code mandates suo motu action by the police upon receipt of information.

2) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and another, 2025 INSC 4 10

The Court drew on Imran Pratapgadhi to contrast Section 154 CrPC with Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Under the CrPC, per Lalita Kumari, preliminary inquiry is permissible only to ascertain if the information reveals a cognizable offence in limited categories. By contrast, Section 173(3) BNSS allows a preliminary inquiry, with superior permission, even where the information discloses a cognizable offence, in cases punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, to determine whether a prima facie case exists to proceed.

The Court clarified that the incident predates BNSS; therefore, CrPC and the Lalita Kumari framework governed. Still, the comparative analysis in Imran Pratapgadhi reinforced that, for the time relevant in this case, the police had no discretion to delay FIR registration upon receiving MLC information disclosing a cognizable offence.

Legal Reasoning

1) MLC Intimation as “Information” Triggering Section 154 CrPC

The Court treated the MLC intimation—recorded in the General Diary—as “information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence” within Section 154(1) CrPC. The medical record, noting “assault with head injury,” combined with the ongoing communal riots, made it incumbent upon the police to register an FIR and to promptly record the victim’s statement when his medical condition permitted. Failure to do so was “total dereliction of duty,” whether deliberate or careless.

2) SP’s Duty under Section 154(3) CrPC

The appellant’s complaint addressed to the SP on 1 June 2023 triggered Section 154(3), which obligates the SP to assess whether the information discloses a cognizable offence and either investigate the case personally or direct a subordinate to do so. The Court found no explanation from the SP and censured this non-compliance, emphasizing that supervisory accountability is integral to the statutory scheme.

3) No Burden on Victim/Relatives to “Pursue” the Police

Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court held that neither the victim’s minor status nor any perceived delay absolved the police of their duty. The statutory trigger is receipt of information of a cognizable offence; the obligation to act is with the police, not the victim. The High Court’s suggestion that the appellant should have “voluntarily” gone to the police station ignored both his injuries and his minority.

4) Separate Offences Require Separate Investigative Attention

The existence of a chargesheet in the murder of Gaikwad did not bar the registration of a separate FIR for the assault on the appellant. The Court implicitly recognized that related but distinct incidents, victims, and offences cannot be subsumed within a single investigation when separate cognizable offences are disclosed—particularly where the police are on notice through an MLC and a subsequent complaint to the SP.

5) Police Neutrality and Structural Remedies

The Court reminded that police officers must shed any personal biases—religious, racial, casteist, or otherwise—when donning the uniform. Concerned by the context of communal violence and the investigative gaps, the Court ordered a community-balanced SIT (officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities), coupled with disciplinary proceedings and sensitization measures. These directives aim to restore public confidence and ensure unbiased investigation.

Impact and Prospective Significance

1) Operational Consequences for Policing

MLC-triggered FIRs: Hospitals’ MLC intimations to police will now more explicitly be treated as statutory triggers requiring immediate FIR registration where the medical note indicates assault or other cognizable offences.
Follow-up Protocols: Police must return to record the victim’s statement at the earliest medical opportunity; “unfit to speak now” cannot translate into “no FIR ever.”
Supervisory Accountability: SPs must document their Section 154(3) determinations and directions; silence or inaction risks judicial censure and disciplinary action.
General Diary Compliance: GD entries must meticulously capture receipt of MLC information and follow-on action, as directed in Lalita Kumari.

2) Writ Jurisdiction in the Face of Police Inaction

The judgment underscores that writ courts should not withhold relief on “belatedness” where the delay stems from police nonfeasance. Chargesheeting in a related case does not neutralize the State’s duty to register and investigate another disclosed cognizable offence affecting a different victim.

3) Communal Violence Investigations

The specially composed SIT signals a template for cases with credible allegations of communal bias in policing. The Court’s direction to sensitize the force creates a normative push for training modules on neutrality, riot-related SOPs, and victim protection.

4) Interface with BNSS

Although CrPC governed the instant incident, the judgment’s comparative reference to BNSS Section 173(3) will influence future practice. Even under BNSS, the obligation to act promptly remains; only the scope for preliminary inquiry in specified sentencing bands changes the operational workflow. For serious offences (e.g., grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), the imperative to register FIR remains unalloyed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

FIR (First Information Report): The document registered by the police upon receiving information of a cognizable offence; it sets the criminal law in motion.
Cognizable Offence: An offence for which police can arrest without warrant and start investigation without court permission (e.g., various forms of hurt, grievous hurt, and attempted murder).
MLC (Medico-Legal Case): A medical case with legal implications (e.g., assault), mandatorily intimated by hospitals to police; here, the MLC recorded “assault with head injury.”
General Diary (GD): The daily record at a police station capturing all information received and actions taken; required to reflect receipt of cognizable offence information.
Section 154 CrPC: Mandates FIR registration when information discloses a cognizable offence; creating a structured process, including recourse to the SP if the SHO refuses.
Section 154(3) CrPC: Empowers an aggrieved informant to write to the SP when the station-in-charge refuses to register an FIR; the SP must evaluate and ensure investigation.
Section 27, Indian Evidence Act: Allows use of information received from an accused in police custody to the extent it distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact (cited in the context of recoveries in the murder investigation).
SIT (Special Investigation Team): A multi-officer team constituted to conduct or supervise an investigation, often to ensure impartiality and credibility in sensitive matters.
Article 226, Constitution: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights; here, the Supreme Court found the High Court erred in refusing relief at a “belated” stage.

Critical Appraisal of the High Court’s Approach

The High Court focused on the alleged delay by the appellant/relatives and accepted the police denial of a hospital statement. The Supreme Court found this misdirected: the existence of GD entries on the MLC, the appellant’s minority, and the statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC rendered such delay arguments untenable. Moreover, in attributing motives to the appellant without investigation, the High Court inverted the statutory presumption—mandating police action even amidst uncertainty and controversy—to a presumption against the victim.

Remedial Architecture Ordered

SIT Constitution: Senior officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to register an FIR and investigate the assault on the appellant.
Disciplinary Action: Against all erring police officials for patent dereliction, including the SHO and the SP who failed to act under Section 154(3).
Sensitization: State to institute measures to train and sensitize police on statutory duties, neutrality, and correct procedures on receiving MLC information.
Oversight: SIT’s report to be placed before the Supreme Court within three months.

Practical Takeaways for Stakeholders

Police Stations: Treat MLC intimations as immediate Section 154 triggers; record GD entries; register FIRs where cognizable offences are indicated; promptly re-approach victims medically unfit at first contact.
Superintendents of Police: Maintain a structured register of Section 154(3) complaints; record satisfaction notes and investigation directions; ensure traceable compliance.
Hospitals: Ensure timely and accurate MLC intimations; preserve medical records; respond to police requests regarding victim fitness for statement recording.
Courts: Exercise writ powers to correct clear statutory non-compliance notwithstanding “belatedness” where delay is a product of police inaction; recognize separateness of offences and victims in related riot matters.
Policy Makers: Develop SOPs for riot-era MLC handling; standardize victim follow-up; embed neutrality training; consider independent audits of communal-violence investigations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision sets a clarifying marker on two fronts: first, that MLC intimation of an assault functions as “information” under Section 154 CrPC requiring FIR registration and expeditious follow-up; second, that supervisory responsibility under Section 154(3) is real and enforceable, not formal. In the sensitive context of communal violence—where bias, fear, and misinformation can distort justice—the Court’s insistence on police neutrality and its innovative SIT design seek to restore public confidence in law enforcement.

By correcting the High Court’s error and insisting on structural remedies—discipline, sensitization, and community-balanced investigation—the judgment strengthens the jurisprudential spine of Lalita Kumari and updates it for an era negotiating the transition to BNSS. The overarching message is unambiguous: once the State is put on notice—by MLC or otherwise—of a cognizable offence, the law demands action. Inaction is not a choice; it is a breach.

Key Takeaways

MLC intimation of assault is sufficient “information” to trigger mandatory FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC.
Police must follow up to record statements at the earliest medical opportunity; initial unfitness does not excuse inaction.
SPs have an enforceable duty under Section 154(3) to act on complaints when an SHO refuses or fails to register an FIR.
Separate cognizable offences require separate investigative attention even if a related case has already been chargesheeted.
Courts may order community-balanced SITs and disciplinary action to counter perceived bias and ensure impartiality in communal violence cases.