HIGH COURT SLAMS STATE FOR NOT REGISTERING FIR IN ALLEGED ENCOUNTER CASE
The Bombay High Court on Monday (April 7, 2025) directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged fake police encounter of Akshay Shinde, a Badlapur sexual assault accused.
A Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale issued the order in response to a plea filed by Shinde’s father, Anna Maruti Shinde. The Court had previously reserved its decision on March 13.
SIT TO BE SUPERVISED BY MUMBAI JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
The SIT will be headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) and will function under the supervision of Mumbai Joint Commissioner of Police Lakhmi Gautam, the Court directed.
The Court strongly criticized the State of Maharashtra for failing to even register a First Information Report (FIR) despite the findings of a magisterial inquiry.
“A constitutional court cannot ignore the State’s failure to fulfil its obligations. Refusal to investigate a crime undermines the rule of law, erodes public faith in justice, and allows perpetrators to go unpunished. The State’s reluctance to even register an FIR has left the petitioner and his wife feeling helpless, forcing them to forgo closure over their son’s untimely death. Such negligence weakens public trust in institutions and compromises the state’s legitimacy. As a Constitutional Court, we cannot permit this and be mute spectators,” the Bench remarked.
COURT: “INVESTIGATION MUST BE UNBIASED, HONEST, AND JUST”
The Court emphasized the need for maintaining public trust in the justice system and law enforcement.
“Let the faith of the people in the administration of register stand shaken. Denial of fair investigation or delay in investigation is as much injustice to the victim and the society as to the accused. The concept of fair and proper investigation means that investigation must be unbiased, honest, just, and per law,” the Bench said.
BACKGROUND: THE ALLEGED ENCOUNTER
Akshay Shinde was arrested in August 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two kindergarten girls. He was killed in a police encounter on September 23, 2024, by the Thane police.
Police claimed that Shinde had attempted to snatch a firearm and opened fire, prompting them to retaliate. However, a magisterial inquiry later concluded that the encounter was unnecessary and held five police officers responsible.
Despite this, the State refused to file an FIR, citing an independent State CID investigation. Shinde’s family challenged this in court.
COURT REJECTS STATE’S DELAY AND CITES LALITA KUMARI JUDGMENT
The Court took serious note of the fact that the magisterial inquiry revealed a cognizable offence, which per the Lalita Kumari judgment by the Supreme Court, mandates the police to register an FIR.
“Only because the complainant/informant/victim hails from the poor strata of the society, his grievance cannot be ignored or brushed aside by the State. The offence, if any, is against the State and it is the responsibility of the State to take appropriate steps, if not based on the petitioner’s complaint, even based on the inquiry report or otherwise, based on the information received and take the same to its logical end,” the Court observed.
“This course of action is warranted in the interest of justice, to advance the course of justice, and to uphold public confidence in the justice delivery system. The same as necessitated keeping in mind the adage justice must not only be served but also seen to be done.”
SIT FORMATION AND HANDING OVER OF MATERIALS
The Bench directed the State CID to transfer all related material to the SIT within two days. The Court proceeded with the case even after the petitioners attempted to withdraw their plea due to lack of State action.
“Although it was easier to dispose of the petition, a constitutional court cannot be a mute spectator to this,” the Court stated.
STATE’S REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED
After the pronouncement of the order, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Desai requested a two-week stay on the judgment to allow the State to approach the Supreme Court. However, the Bench rejected the request.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
FOR THE PETITIONER:
Advocate Amit Katarnaware
Advocates Pooja Dongare and Aditya Katarnaware
FOR THE STATE:
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Desai
Public Prosecutor Hiten S Venegavkar
Additional Public Prosecutor P P Shinde
AMICUS CURIAE:
Senior Advocate Manjula Rao
Assisted by Advocates Kunal J Rane, Rohan Deshmukh, Pratik Deomore, and Latika Chitre
