The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Chhattisgarh Police over the prolonged delay in registering an FIR in a custodial death case, with the Court questioning the competence of the State Police to conduct an inquiry into the death.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by the wife and two daughters of the deceased, who alleged that he died as a result of custodial torture.

The deceased, aged 34, had been taken into custody on January 18, 2024, on allegations of possessing liquor for sale outside his grocery shop. He was referred to a hospital three days later, on January 21, and died at around 6 AM.

FIR Registered More Than Two Years After Custodial Death

Despite the death occurring in January 2024, an FIR to investigate the custodial death was apparently registered only on July 30, 2026.

The deceased's family had initially approached the High Court seeking a fair investigation and Rs. 50 lakh compensation. The High Court, however, disposed of the matter while awarding only Rs. 1 lakh compensation, without directing registration of an FIR or ordering an investigation into the allegations.

The family thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had earlier observed that the compensation awarded by the High Court was “completely inadequate” and “not commensurate” with the gravity of the loss suffered by the family. It consequently directed the State Home Secretary and the DGP to remain present before the Court through video conferencing.

Supreme Court Questions DGP's Explanation

During the recent hearing, the DGP informed the Court that an inquiry had been ordered and that stringent action would be taken against officials found responsible.

The Bench, however, expressed serious displeasure over the manner in which the matter had been handled, particularly the prolonged failure to register an FIR against the police officials allegedly responsible.

Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned whether the State Police was competent to conduct the investigation or whether the matter should be entrusted to another agency.

“From what we have seen, we don't feel that the administration of Chhattisgarh is competent enough to deal with this matter,”

the Court observed.

“We Will Draw Contempt Proceedings!”

When the DGP sought to justify the delay by stating that the judicial inquiry report concerning the cause of death had not been received by the police department, Justice Mehta pointed out that the report had already been appended to the State's affidavit filed before the High Court.

The Court expressed the possibility of initiating contempt proceedings, observing that the State appeared to have misled the Court on multiple aspects.

The judicial inquiry report had found that the deceased died due to a head injury caused by a blunt weapon.

When the DGP submitted that the report did not disclose any cognizable offence warranting registration of an FIR, Justice Mehta sharply questioned the submission.

“What do you mean by death by head injury caused by a blunt weapon? Tell us please. You understand? In plain English?”

The Court then made a strong observation regarding the State Police chief's handling of the matter, stating that it would have to record that the DGP of Chhattisgarh was “totally incompetent.”

Judicial Inquiry Found Head Injury Behind Death

According to the case history, the deceased was medically examined after his arrest and, according to the State's submissions before the High Court, no injury was found at that stage except generalized swelling that had allegedly been present for around 15 days.

On January 22, 2024, the Jail Superintendent wrote to the Sessions Judge seeking a judicial inquiry into the death.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate subsequently initiated an inquiry under Section 176 of the CrPC.

The concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class ultimately submitted a report in July 2024, opining that the death had occurred due to complications arising from the head injury.

Despite this, the FIR was not registered until July 30, 2026.

High Court Had Awarded Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation

The High Court had held the State liable to compensate the family on the ground that the State, as employer of the officials whose “negligence” resulted in the loss of life, was responsible.

It awarded Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, observing that such compensation was also intended to have a deterrent effect on police and jail officials against conduct that could result in loss of life.

The Supreme Court had earlier found the amount inadequate in view of the circumstances surrounding the death.

The matter has now been listed for orders.

Case Details

Case: Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh
Diary No.: 48963/2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta