Magistrate Directs FIR and Investigation in Alleged Custodial Death

Authored by Abhishek Jat, Advocate

The recent order issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate Vasundhara Chhaunkar of Rohini Courts in Setara Bibi vs. Unknown Persons (Ct. Case 1933/2024) marks a pivotal judicial intervention in a case involving the alleged custodial death of Sheikh Shadat at Subhash Place Police Station, Delhi. The proceedings were initiated on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Setara Bibi, the widow of the deceased, after more than seven months had elapsed without the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) regarding her husband's death in police custody.

The factual matrix reveals that on July 21, 2023, Sheikh Shadat, accompanied by four others, was intercepted by police officers at Netaji Subhash Place. The group was detained and taken to Subhash Place Police Station under circumstances that the complainant described as arbitrary and aggressive. Family members, upon visiting the station, reported that all detainees, including the deceased, complained of mistreatment and alleged extortion attempts by the police. The following day, an FIR under the Arms Act was registered against all five individuals, with Shadat being remanded to police custody while the others were sent to judicial custody. According to the complaint and corroborated by witness accounts, Shadat was visibly injured during his last court appearance and recounted to his family that he had been severely beaten for refusing to comply with extortion demands.

On July 23, 2023, the deceased’s family received notification from Jahangirpuri Police Station that Shadat had been admitted to Ambedkar Hospital. Upon arrival, they were directed to the mortuary, where they discovered his body, which bore extensive black and blue marks, particularly on the back and chest, along with swelling and injuries to his limbs. The family documented these injuries through photographs and video footage, which were later submitted to the court as evidence.

Despite repeated representations to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the filing of status reports, no FIR was registered, and the authorities cited the pendency of judicial inquiry as the reason for inaction. The inquest and post-mortem reports eventually attributed the cause of death to coronary artery disease, ruling out homicide or suicide. However, the Magistrate, after a meticulous review of the evidence, noted that the visible injuries on the deceased’s body could not be disregarded at this preliminary stage. The court emphasized that the presence of such injuries, as documented in the photographs and video footage, raised serious questions that required a thorough and impartial investigation.

In her legal reasoning, the Magistrate referenced several landmark judgments to underscore the necessity of judicial intervention in cases where the complainant lacks the means to independently collect evidence. Among the authorities cited were D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which established procedural safeguards against custodial violence, and Parambir Singh Saini v. Baljeet Singh & Ors (2021), which addressed the importance of CCTV surveillance in police stations. The court also drew upon the principles laid down in Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2010), M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State (2002), and Ravindra Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2012), all of which emphasize the discretionary power of the Magistrate to direct police investigation when the complainant is not in a position to gather evidence unaided.

The Magistrate concluded that dismissing the application solely on the basis of the inquest report would be contrary to the interests of justice, particularly given the complainant’s inability to collect extensive evidence. The court held that a prima facie cognizable offence had been disclosed and that a comprehensive investigation was essential to ascertain the truth, including inquiry into technical aspects such as the availability and preservation of CCTV footage from the police station. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the SHO of Subhash Place Police Station was directed to register an FIR and submit a compliance report by June 28, 2025.

This order not only reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to accountability in custodial environments but also highlights the importance of judicial oversight in cases where procedural barriers may otherwise impede access to justice. The case stands as a reminder that visible signs of physical trauma in custodial deaths demand judicial scrutiny, regardless of preliminary medical findings, and that the investigative process must be transparent and exhaustive to uphold the rule of law.

Authored by Abhishek Jat, Advocate