Delhi Magistrate Directs Police to File FIR in Shocking Case of Man’s Death in Custody

The recent ruling that was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Rohini Courts in Delhi in the matter of Setara Bibi vs Unknown Persons is an important statement of judicial control in situations where there is suspected abuse of custody.

The application was submitted in accordance with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when it was reported that the complainant’s husband, Sheikh Shadat, had sustained fatal injuries while being held by the police at Subhash Place.

Despite the fact that the police had neglected to register a First Information Report (FIR), many status updates were submitted. Where a complainant lacks the resources to independently gather evidence and where prima facie cognizable offenses appear to have been committed, the court emphasized the necessity of judicial involvement by instructing the SHO to register a First Information Report by June 28, 2025. This directive was issued in order to emphasize the necessity of judicial action.

The complaint states that on July 21, 2023, Mr. Shadat and four other individuals were stopped and questioned by authorities at Netaji Subhash Place without any apparent reason. They were then brought into jail and reportedly subjected to attempts at extortion as well as severe beatings.

Photographs and video footage that was shot by his relatives showed that he had black and blue bruises on his back and chest, as well as a hand that was noticeably swelled and legs that were wounded.

The ensuing inquest determined that coronary artery disease was the cause of death, while noting that there were no indications of homicidal or suicidal intent. He was remanded to police prison on July 22, and by the following day, he was declared dead at Ambedkar Hospital.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

This medical finding, however, was deemed insufficient by the court in light of the physical evidence that suggested that the individual had been subjected to torture while in custody.

Following the receipt of information regarding the occurrence of a cognizable offense, a Magistrate is granted the authority to instruct the police to register a case and undertake an investigation, as stipulated by Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In order to ensure that judicial power has the ability to compel law enforcement to take action when it is warranted, this clause acts as an essential check on the passivity and arbitrariness of the police. According to the Supreme Court has highlighted that this power must be employed with discretion, with the Magistrate providing consideration to the nature of the charges and the complainant’s ability to gather evidence prior to giving such directives.

Furthermore, the discretionary nature of Section 156(3) is shown by the jurisprudence surrounding it. In the case of M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State (2001), the Delhi High Court ruled that orders under this provision should be reserved for situations in which the help of the police is required to acquire evidence that the complainant would not otherwise have access to.

It is possible that a magisterial decree is not required in situations where the charges are not so serious or if the complainant is in possession of adequate proof. Nevertheless, the court is obligated to take into consideration whether the charges are of a character that necessitates a police investigation in order to serve the interests of justice .

Ravindra Kumar v. State of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (2012) was another case that reaffirmed the fact that the remedy provided by Section 156(3) is discretionary. The magistrate must be convinced that a cognizable offense was committed, and that there is a requirement for the police to conduct an investigation in order to uncover material that is beyond the reach of the complainant.

This concept prevents the use of authority in a mechanical manner, ensuring that investigations are only directed when judicial examination determines that they are required to uncover the truth.

In this particular instance, Chief Judicial Magistrate Vasundhra Chhaunkar acknowledged that, notwithstanding the conclusions of the inquest report, the presence of photographic and video evidence revealing significant injuries necessitated a comprehensive inquiry by the police.

Citing previous cases, such as the decision made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Subhkaran Luharuka and Others v. State, which emphasized the significance of treating allegations of custodial abuse with the appropriate level of seriousness, the court emphasized that relying solely on an inquest report could be detrimental to the administration of justice in situations where complainants are unable to independently obtain comprehensive proof.

The ruling emphasized the significance of technological contributions, notably the preservation and inspection of CCTV video, in addition to the evaluation of medical and testimonial evidence.

In contemporary metropolitan police, closed-circuit television recordings frequently offer incontestable dates and visual evidence to support allegations of excessive use of force by law enforcement. For this reason, a police investigation that is authorized by the court must combine forensic analysis and rules for the preservation of digital data in order to both recreate events and identify those responsible for them.

There are greater ramifications for accountability in law enforcement that are brought about by this ruling. By requiring a First Information Report (FIR) to be filed in the case of a tragic fatality that occurred in custody, the court underlined that police delay cannot protect suspected misbehavior.

One of the most important safeguards is judicial monitoring, which is provided under Section 156(3). This precaution ensures that the rights of individuals are preserved even in situations where institutional systems fail. In the event that complaints indicate that law enforcement may have exceeded their legal jurisdiction, it is made quite apparent that the courts will step in to restore order.

In conclusion, the order that was issued in the matter of Setara Bibi exemplifies the dynamic interplay that exists between judicial discretion and the duty of the police. The idea that the courts will not hesitate to urge law enforcement to investigate significant claims of torture in custody is reaffirmed by this document.

In situations where complainants are unable to independently gather all of the evidence, the courts will not hesitate to compel law enforcement to investigate. The implementation of this strategy not only contributes to the advancement of the cause of justice in specific instances, but it also helps to enhance public faith in the rule of law.