Mutha Ashok Jain
The latest controversy in the Delhi gang rape case which has rocked the
country centers on the issue/process of lodging an FIR, the need for the
complainant to personally visit the police station and give a signed
complaint and the discretion exercised by the police in lodging, not
lodging or delaying the lodging of an FIR. Add to it the issue of
territorial jurisdiction of a police station and the tendency to pass the
buck, and you have an explosive mix of ingredients which almost always end
up blowing up in the face of the department despite all the good intentions
professed from time to time.
The concept of an FIR in the Indian criminal justice system is a legal
document with an unique number that is mandatory to kick off an
investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. All investigative and
police work done before the actual lodging of the FIR is usually ignored
and the FIR is treated as sacrosanct, both by the public and the police as
well as the courts, despite certain judicial pronouncements from time to
time. In the absence of a proper system to document the work done by the
police immediately after receiving an information but before the formal
lodging of an FIR, the facts unearthed during this phase are usually given
a go bye as the investigator invariably tries to stick to the story
outlined in the FIR, even though he may come to know that the FIR may be
including facts which were added as an afterthought. He takes the path of
least resistance as the superiors also usually do not take kindly to any
deviations from the FIR and at times the integrity of the investigator is
put under the scanner. It requires a lot of time, guts and patience to try
and prove the facts in the FIR to be wrong as by this time the complainant
has mobilized witnesses who will buttress the version of the events
mentioned in the FIR. Fearing controversy and potential harassment, the
investigator usually swallows the FIR knowing full well that the facts
mentioned may be at variance with the actual happening.
FIR gained such inviolable sanctity because in the olden days, information
reached the police only when someone visited the police station physically
to report an incident which may have occurred a day or two ago in the
interior. In the absence of proper roads and fast means of communication,
physical visits and written and signed complaints were felt to be crucial
and therefore were made legally mandatory. We have continued with the
legacy while the means of communication have exploded and distances have
collapsed. Information now usually reaches the police through various
channels such as telephone, media, fax, email etc. about the commissioning
of a crime long before an FIR is lodged. The police control rooms routinely
receive hundreds of calls daily which are communicated to the field units
for necessary action. Many of these calls contain the ingredients of a
crime, but are not recorded as crime until the formal FIR is lodged. As a
result, a lot of criminal incidents go unreported legally as not many
people have the courage to brave a visit to the police station and follow
up with a formal FIR.
As thing stand today, the formal FIR has become a tool in the hands of
unscrupulous police officers to exercise discretion in recording crime and
thus encourages burking. At the same time, it is also used by unscrupulous
citizens to exaggerate and even invent crime where none has occurred and
harass innocents/opponents. Absence of deterrent laws against perjury
makes it easy to settle scores through the criminal justice system.
The following measures can go a long way in putting a check both on the
police as well as unscrupulous manipulators.
1. All informations which contain the ingredients of a crime received
at the police control rooms can be given a legal sanctity and an unique
number. They may be called Initial Information Report or IIR to distinguish
them from FIR. This information need not be written or signed and may be
communicated over the phone, through fax or E-mail.
2. All such IIRs must be followed up under a well defined and quick
legal process until either they are found to frivolous/false, or it is
found that an FIR exists concerning the same matter.
3. If the ingredients of a crime are established during the enquiry,
they must be converted into FIR at the police station having jurisdiction
on the basis of the enquiry report itself, without the complainant having
to visit the police station again and submit a signed complaint. In other
words, there is no need for a formal FIR by the complainant in such a
situation.
4. The facts unearthed during the enquiry of the IIR must be recorded
in a legally defined manner and should be transmitted to the investigation
officer of the subsequent FIR, if any.
5. Once an IIR is received and an FIR registered on the basis of the
enquiry, the statement of the complainant may be recorded under sec.161 of
Cr. P.C.
It is high time we moved away from a singular approach to registration of
crime and shift to a multi pronged approach which does justice to our claim
of being an egalitarian and democratic society abiding by the rule of law.
To achieve this, strengthening police control rooms and giving legal
sanctity to the information landing at the control rooms is a must.
(The author is a serving IPS officer of UP cadre. The views expressed here
are personal)
The latest controversy in the Delhi gang rape case which has rocked the
country centers on the issue/process of lodging an FIR, the need for the
complainant to personally visit the police station and give a signed
complaint and the discretion exercised by the police in lodging, not
lodging or delaying the lodging of an FIR. Add to it the issue of
territorial jurisdiction of a police station and the tendency to pass the
buck, and you have an explosive mix of ingredients which almost always end
up blowing up in the face of the department despite all the good intentions
professed from time to time.
The concept of an FIR in the Indian criminal justice system is a legal
document with an unique number that is mandatory to kick off an
investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. All investigative and
police work done before the actual lodging of the FIR is usually ignored
and the FIR is treated as sacrosanct, both by the public and the police as
well as the courts, despite certain judicial pronouncements from time to
time. In the absence of a proper system to document the work done by the
police immediately after receiving an information but before the formal
lodging of an FIR, the facts unearthed during this phase are usually given
a go bye as the investigator invariably tries to stick to the story
outlined in the FIR, even though he may come to know that the FIR may be
including facts which were added as an afterthought. He takes the path of
least resistance as the superiors also usually do not take kindly to any
deviations from the FIR and at times the integrity of the investigator is
put under the scanner. It requires a lot of time, guts and patience to try
and prove the facts in the FIR to be wrong as by this time the complainant
has mobilized witnesses who will buttress the version of the events
mentioned in the FIR. Fearing controversy and potential harassment, the
investigator usually swallows the FIR knowing full well that the facts
mentioned may be at variance with the actual happening.
FIR gained such inviolable sanctity because in the olden days, information
reached the police only when someone visited the police station physically
to report an incident which may have occurred a day or two ago in the
interior. In the absence of proper roads and fast means of communication,
physical visits and written and signed complaints were felt to be crucial
and therefore were made legally mandatory. We have continued with the
legacy while the means of communication have exploded and distances have
collapsed. Information now usually reaches the police through various
channels such as telephone, media, fax, email etc. about the commissioning
of a crime long before an FIR is lodged. The police control rooms routinely
receive hundreds of calls daily which are communicated to the field units
for necessary action. Many of these calls contain the ingredients of a
crime, but are not recorded as crime until the formal FIR is lodged. As a
result, a lot of criminal incidents go unreported legally as not many
people have the courage to brave a visit to the police station and follow
up with a formal FIR.
As thing stand today, the formal FIR has become a tool in the hands of
unscrupulous police officers to exercise discretion in recording crime and
thus encourages burking. At the same time, it is also used by unscrupulous
citizens to exaggerate and even invent crime where none has occurred and
harass innocents/opponents. Absence of deterrent laws against perjury
makes it easy to settle scores through the criminal justice system.
The following measures can go a long way in putting a check both on the
police as well as unscrupulous manipulators.
1. All informations which contain the ingredients of a crime received
at the police control rooms can be given a legal sanctity and an unique
number. They may be called Initial Information Report or IIR to distinguish
them from FIR. This information need not be written or signed and may be
communicated over the phone, through fax or E-mail.
2. All such IIRs must be followed up under a well defined and quick
legal process until either they are found to frivolous/false, or it is
found that an FIR exists concerning the same matter.
3. If the ingredients of a crime are established during the enquiry,
they must be converted into FIR at the police station having jurisdiction
on the basis of the enquiry report itself, without the complainant having
to visit the police station again and submit a signed complaint. In other
words, there is no need for a formal FIR by the complainant in such a
situation.
4. The facts unearthed during the enquiry of the IIR must be recorded
in a legally defined manner and should be transmitted to the investigation
officer of the subsequent FIR, if any.
5. Once an IIR is received and an FIR registered on the basis of the
enquiry, the statement of the complainant may be recorded under sec.161 of
Cr. P.C.
It is high time we moved away from a singular approach to registration of
crime and shift to a multi pronged approach which does justice to our claim
of being an egalitarian and democratic society abiding by the rule of law.
To achieve this, strengthening police control rooms and giving legal
sanctity to the information landing at the control rooms is a must.
(The author is a serving IPS officer of UP cadre. The views expressed here
are personal)
No comments:
Post a Comment