Custodial Death | Registration Of FIR Mandatory Upon Disclosure Of Cognizable Offence, Independent Investigation Required: Gujarat High Court

"The inquiry conducted by the Judicial Magistrate is in addition to the investigation conducted by the police and not in substitution thereof." Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling dated 28 September 2026, held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory upon the disclosure of a cognizable offence in cases of custodial death, and that such an investigation cannot be supplanted by an inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

A bench of Justice M. K. Thakker observed that the protective nature of the constitutional rights of a citizen in custody necessitates judicial intervention when police authorities fail to act on allegations of custodial violence.

The petitioner, Suman Bishnoi, sought the registration of an FIR following the death of her husband, Jawri Mal Bishnoi, a Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, while in the custody of the CBI. Following the deceased's arrest on 24 March 2023, he was kept in his office for nearly 19 hours for post-trap panchnama proceedings before he allegedly jumped from a window and died. Despite complaints alleging murder and torture being filed with local police and the Magistrate, the authorities treated the incident merely as an "Accidental Death" under Section 174 CrPC and subsequently conducted a judicial inquiry under Section 176, which concluded that no offence was committed by the officials.

The primary issue before the court was whether the police authorities were justified in refusing to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint, given the existence of an ongoing judicial inquiry under Section 176 of the CrPC. The court was further called upon to determine if a judicial inquiry serves as a substitute for a criminal investigation in cases involving custodial death and whether the mandate of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh applies in such circumstances.

Mandatory Registration of FIR

The court emphasized that the mandate laid down in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 is absolute when a cognizable offence is disclosed. The bench clarified that the police are duty-bound to register an FIR and that an inquiry under Section 174 or Section 176 of the CrPC cannot operate as a bar to a full-scale criminal investigation. The court reasoned that the purpose of a police investigation is to collect evidence and identify offenders, whereas a judicial inquiry is a limited search for the cause of death.

Inadequacy of Magisterial Inquiries

The court noted that judicial inquiries lack the specialized machinery, investigative tools, and statutory reach available to police agencies. Observing that the inquiry into the death of the deceased failed to account for several critical factors—including the failure to produce the arrestee before a Magistrate within 24 hours as required by Article 22(2) and Section 167 CrPC—the court held that reliance on these limited inquiries to exonerate officials is legally flawed.

Custodial Death as a Grave Violation

The bench remarked that custodial death constitutes one of the most serious violations in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. Drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the court reiterated that convicts, under-trials, and prisoners are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21, and the State bears a strict duty of care to ensure the life and liberty of individuals in its custody.

Need for Independent Investigation

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the internal police inquiries that failed to adequately investigate allegations of torture. To ensure fairness and maintain public confidence, the court directed the registration of an FIR against unknown persons and mandated that the investigation be transferred to an independent agency.

Supervision by Superior Police Authority

The investigation is to be supervised by the DIG, CID Crime, who must ensure the process is conducted independently and expeditiously. The final report is to be submitted within three months, with a copy forwarded to the High Court registry for judicial perusal.

"The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law."

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026