Harnessing the Bucking Bulls

The First information Report is the most important document without which the police will not initiate an investigation. Criminal procedure code and police standing orders  mandate the police to register all FIR' s. However, cases of non-registration are extremely common. Indeed, it is one of the most widespread grievances of citizens, particularly from the weaker sectors of society. A variety of reasons account for non-registration  mostly the complaint is not registered on the ground that the offence has occurred in the jurisdiction of some other police station or the case reported has to do with civil liability. Police are reluctant to take aggressive action to fight crime against caste stratum since the officers’ decisions in the field are subject to scrutiny. police engage in selective investigation of cases singling out  a particular caste member  for questioning or even arrest on trumped-up charges. police conceal crime by not registering it. Our long arm of the law are unlikely to investigate crime, except in those very rare cases involving a reward.. The plain fact for failure to register the case is that no one, not even the  superior officers care to review the station house officers conduct, work, or abiding value, because the inherent complex pattern of precinct boundaries is controlling in such matters. criminal prosecutions of police officers appear rare. Civil suits are inadequate tools for redressing and curbing police misconduct.

Police officer's decision, however, not to investigate a cognizable offence which he has reason to believe constitutes a violation of the law . The evil that  pervades  the system  is police officers are  unaccountable in court  either criminally or civilly for non registration of  cases. Section 154 of  Criminal procedure  code mandates the police to investigate all cognizable offences which are called to their attention, but they appear to have a limited discretion as to enforcement. The police have not been delegated discretion not to invoke the criminal process.  The apex court constitution bench  ruled that action  should be taken against the police officer who fails to register First Information Report  on the complaint of a cognizable offence-2013 (6) CTC 353

Police often ignore standard concepts of fairness, reasonableness,  official regulations, and statutes  in investigating cognizable offence. Law may be clear, but it is more prudent for the officer to ignore strict letter of the law  .Police dominance over the civilian  is the "only iron and inflexible rule" Thus, any person who defies police faces virtually certain negative repercussions,may be  an arrest, or a bullet - A minor boy, was allegedly shot in his throat by a police inspector inside a police station in Chennai  but law is however  slow to react to this far -reaching crime ..The question of whether the police should be entitled to special due process protections in misconduct investigations poses the issue of the role of the police .It  depict the reality of law enforcement .cases where police misconduct is an issue, police use their  board game skills over the crime scene to prepare the evidence to suit their version of events. Mr Abraham the officer who nailed sahara groups  for misdemeanor  and landed its promoter Subrato Roy in Tihar jail is being hounded by C.B.I. .

The present trend  in police is to make an investigation and thereafter form  an opinion about the commission of an offence followed by refusal to register FIR . Such a procedure  is not known to law. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.The conferment of absolute discretion to the Police to register a cognizable offence or not, tantamount to malfeasance . In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and deviates from the statutory duty the delinquent officer  can be prosecuted u/s 166 IPC –The proviso spells out that  -Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Most Burning and worrying issue is  Police  officer as Public servants are allowed to go Scot free for want of sanction or  sanctions are either delayed or refused.

Whether sanction is  required under Section 197 of the Code?

A station house officer disobeying the direction of law which mandates the registration of cognizable offences  absolutely has connection with the discharge of official duty. Section 197 debars a court from taking cognizance of an offence except with the previous sanction of the Government concerned in a case where the acts complained of are alleged to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or purporting to be in the discharge of his official duty and such public servant is not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government touches the jurisdiction of the court.

The question as to whether the protection of section 197 Cr.P.C. is available to all or every public servant or not  will have to be answered after the two conditions being satisfied as aforesaid. Firstly the important conditions for necessity of sanction is that, the public servant must be removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Govt. If a public servant is removable by the superior authority, not being the Govt the  question of sanction will not arise. Therefore a station house officer  who is a sub-inspector  or inspector  are not appointed by government and therefore  no question of sanction can arise under Section 197,

A police officers decision, , not to investigate  a complaint  which he has reason to believe as cognizable offence, constitutes a violation of the law and carry with it consequences sufficiently visible to make the  society aware of a possible failure of  service which has disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order. It is deplorable that the valuable time of the parties and of the courts,  had to be spent in  obtaining directions  in court  for registration of case which could  be avoided if  police perform  their official duty perseveringly.

At times the police seek the assistance of prosecutors  or government pleaders .presumption of reasonableness tilts  in favor of a police officer who has relied on a prosecutor’s legal advice. Police officer’s decision to  obtain a prosecutor’s legal advice is per se objectively reasonable,” but it underscores the importance of biased opinion. Obviously Prosecution is inherently political. There  are no established mechanisms to  check the prosecutorial decisions. They do not take the victims view into account when deciding about prosecuting an offender or not .some prosecutors, moral code of  aggressive  law enforcement mentality, and  political self-interest might be in sync with police . Unsafe power of the prosecutor: he will pick people rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. It is here that enforcement of law becomes personal,and the real crime becomes subterfuge with the predominant  group,being attached to the wrong political persuasion ,or being personally obnoxious , that in the end life and liberty of individuals are endangered. Police are rarely held accountable for violating ethics rules.The lack of external  superintendence of  position and power creates an environment in which misconduct can go undetected and undeterred. There is an obvious need for an effective check on misconduct. Courts are generally loath to interfere with the inner workings of prosecutorial branch. Similarly disciplinary proceedings have not turned out a fruitful sanction for deterring prosecutorial misconduct. A Sensitiveness to fair play is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the  law enforcing authority who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not  factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility

The process of police reforms  was sparked off by the  judgment of the Supreme Court (2006) 8 SCC 1  It ordained that: "There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority to be headed by a retried District Judge while the State level Authority to be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/ Supreme Court. Such complaints authority have the potential to rein in unethical behavior by police . power of the state  is implemented by omnipresent police force. There is no gain saying the fact that police is the highest arbiter of execution of  government policies . citizens come to them in the quest of  justice. Our police should not be like  “Adeptus Arbites” [galactic police force responsible for enforcing Imperial Law (the Lex Imperialis)] who determine the guilt  by holding  back  the criminals and punish  the weak and foolish] . What power should be entrusted  to the police for enforcing the law? The  law in books is different from the law in action. The gulf between the law on the books and the law in action must be bridged. It is vitally important that full consideration be given to all facets of the problems during the process of  police reforms. The central and state governments are adopting a lukewarm ,recalcitrant attitude and dilly –dally tactics   in enforcing the courts direction. Who is  to harness the bucking  bulls? Hope the Aaam Admi will stage a protest at Jantar mantar  to  pass a special legislation -“Enforcement of  Judgments  Act” for enforcing  judgments .

K.SURESH BABU 

ADVOCATE,

9,RAJA COLONY,SECOND MAIN ROAD,

COLLECTORS OFFICE ROAD,CANTONMENT,

TRICHY