LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     30 December 2009

LET'S PUT FIRS THINGS FIRST

Sixteen years after a gross miscarriage of justice claimed the life of Ruchika Girhotra, the Ministry of Home Affairs has directed that all police complaints be treated as First Information Report (FIRs). Though belated, this is a step, which if implemented diligently, could beef up the criminal justice system greatly. No matter which section of society you come from, a visit to a police station to file an FIR can be a challenging experience. The challenge becomes tougher if the complainant happens to come from the wrong side of the social divide or if it's about a rape case. Policemen are known to delay the filing of an FIR — sometimes as long as nine years as in the Girhotra case — often using the ruse that they are "looking" into the merits of the case. And the Girhotra case is not the only one: the Bhanwari Devi rape case, the Nithari case and the latest road accident involving a Gurgaon-based IT professional, all prove that the first step towards nailing the accused is the most abused in our policing and justice delivery system.

 

According to the ministry, the Station House Officers must also state their reasons for filing an FIR or not registering one to their senior officials. Registering an FIR, unlike say just entry in a police diary, means the onus would be on the police to report the case to a magistrate, investigate, arrest, chargesheet and prosecute the accused. Delays in filing an FIR have often led to the loss of evidence, which could have been be used to nail the accused. In rape cases, the speedy filing of an FIR becomes all the more important because even a 24-hour delay could mean loss of biological evidence. Recently, A Right to Information plea found out that less than 12 per cent of rape complaints are turned into FIRs.

 

However, the compulsory filing of an FIR should not be seen as an end in itself. A progressive move like this needs to be supplemented and that can only be done if the government takes strong measures to improve the quality of investigation, reduce the time factor needed to close a case and lessen political interference in the forces. More often than not, onlookers are allowed to swarm the scene of a crime and tamper with evidence. It is true that there could be a glut in FIRs now and our already stretched police force (as of now there are 300,000 vacancies) could find it difficult to marshal its resources. Yet, this cannot be used as an excuse to not file FIRs. The move is an appropriate first step. But the challenge lies in building on it.



Learning

 2 Replies

M Ramesh (Advocate)     31 December 2009

Does any one of you sincerely believe that the police can delay or avoid registration of the FIR, under the present provisions of law. Whether a circular or reiteration was required from the Home Minister for registration of a case on complaint.  The law has been there for more than a century and the SHO is bound to register a case.  The police brazenly disregard the law as they know very well that even the High Courts do not take seriously when such brazen failures are brought to its notice. Police know the provision that if they refuse to register the case, the victim can go to the local court and seek direction for investigation.  But, the police also know that not all the victims will approach the Court as most of the victim do not have time, energy and money to pursue the matter.  Hence the police are having their last laugh. May be, things may improve, once when India becomes a developed nation or Courts change their attitude. The work load of police is a mere eye-wash.  You look at every front - passport verification, serving of summons, execution of warrants, maintenance of law and order, registration of case, detection of crime, gathering intelligence - failure everywhere.  Even, they have lost their deterrent effect. If the police have failed only on one front, we can understand that the failure could be due to their busy engagement on other fronts.  A retired Joint Director of CBI discloses now - after 16 years that the accused was trying to bribe him, made allegations, he had recommended for other sections of IPC.  The reason as to why did he keep quite so long  is not known. If a person of the rank of Joint Director thought that he could not have done anything for the past 16 years, what can one expect from the public. The proposed move is a knee-jerk reaction made for political purpose. Let us not waste our time in discussing about it.  


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register