The Supreme Court disposed of Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra and other petitioners challenging the Bombay High Court’s order directing immediate registration of an FIR for murder and related offences against unnamed police officers following the custodial death of the defendant-petitioner’s deceased son, Somnath Suryawanshi.
The petitioners were filed in response to the order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 4 July 2025 in which the Court, relying on a judicial inquiry and post mortem report, had found prima facie evidence of custodial violence and directed the police to register an FIR based on the complaint filed earlier by the defendant-petitioner, the deceased’s mother. The High Court invoked the guidelines from Lalita Kumari vs State of UP and underlined the heightened duty of due process and accountability in custodial death cases.
Before the Supreme Court, the State’s counsel argued for clarification, contending that the High Court’s FIR directive should not be interpreted as an order to indiscriminately array all police personnel as accused, especially those not present at the relevant time. The respondent’s counsel clarified that the underlying complaint did not specifically name any particular officer.
The Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh clarified the scope and intent of the earlier High Court order. The bench held that the direction to register an FIR must be construed as being against the crime itself, not against every police officer by default. It affirmed that the police, when registering an FIR based on the material and complaint, need not name any accused unless the officer is satisfied about the specific role played by a particular person.
The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of with these clarifications, underscoring that the function of FIR registration is to set the investigative process in motion, not to assign guilt or name every official attached to the custodial premises in absence of prima facie specific involvement.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.; Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv.; Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv.; Mr. Aakash Shankar, Adv.; Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG (not present); Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.; Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR; Ms. D Poornima, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prakash Ambedkar, Adv. Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, AOR Ms. Kirti Anand, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv.
