Badlapur Sexual Assault Case: Maharashtra Govt Seeks SC Clarification On FIR Against Policemen In Accused Akashay Shinde Encounter

Mumbai: The Maharashtra government’s “reluctance” to register an FIR against the policemen allegedly involved in the death of Akashay Shinde, an accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case, has become increasingly evident, as it has now sought a “clarification” from the Supreme Court.

On April 7, the Bombay High Court had directed the state to register an FIR and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam. The State, however, moved the Supreme Court within two days, challenging both the appointment of Gautam and the direction to register an FIR within 48 hours.

The Supreme Court heard the plea on May 5 and modified the High Court’s order, directing that the SIT would function under the supervision of Director General of Police (DGP) Rashmi Shukla instead.

On May 6, the State sought further clarification from the apex court—this time on whether a second FIR was necessary to probe the encounter. Responding to an oral request from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Prasanna Varale observed: “We may clarify that registration of a second FIR is not needed,” and added this to paragraph 7 of their May 5 order.

Following the alleged encounter on September 23, 2024, an FIR had already been registered at Mumbra police station under charges of attempt to murder—based on a complaint by the policemen, who claimed that Shinde had fired at them and they retaliated in self-defence.

The State has consistently argued that there is no need for a separate FIR against the officers. It maintains that if the SIT, during its investigation, finds sufficient evidence against the policemen, their names can be included in the chargesheet.

Shinde’s parents had approached the High Court seeking an FIR against the police, alleging a “fake encounter” and inaction on their complaint. However, they later withdrew from the case citing personal reasons.

The State CID and the SIT (then headed by Gautam) had informed the High Court that no separate FIR had been registered in the custodial death case.

Several senior criminal lawyers, however, have expressed disagreement with the State’s stance. “Ideally the police should register an FIR and then conduct its inquiry,” said a noted criminal lawyer who preferred to remain anonymous.

Another senior advocate clarified that registering an FIR does not necessarily lead to the arrest of policemen. “Based on the probe, post registration of the FIR, the police can decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest them or not. If there is not sufficient evidence, then the police can always file a summary report before the concerned court,” the lawyer explained.

He further outlined the types of summary reports: “‘A’ Summary means the case is true but undetected, meaning there is no evidence. ‘B’ Summary is filed when the police conclude that it’s a maliciously false case. ‘C’ Summary applies when the case is neither true nor false—for instance, a mistake of fact or a civil dispute.”

A counsel, who has represented the State as special public prosecutor in a few cases, speaking on condition of anonymity, added that the police could also register a cross FIR based on the complaint filed by Shinde’s father.

Shinde, accused of sexually assaulting two minor girls at a school in Badlapur, was shot dead in a police van on September 23, 2024. He was being transported from Taloja prison to Kalyan for questioning in another case. The police claimed Shinde snatched a pistol and fired at them, prompting them to shoot in self-defence. However, his parents alleged he was killed in a fake encounter.

Senior inspector Sanjay Shinde reportedly fired the fatal shot. Assistant police inspector Nilesh More, two constables, and the police van driver were also present during the incident.