SHOULD ALL COMPLAINTS BE TREATED AS FIRs?

"The objective of the circular to the states and UTs is to ensure that even if a complaint is false, police have to investigate it after registering the FIR".

"If the complaint is found to be false, police can always drop the FIR. But that should not be a deterrent in registering genuine complaints as FIR".

In my opinion YES. Provided Government is ready to provide the back bone like

• bifurcating law and order and crime investigation
• sufficient man power for investigation agency
• necessary infrastructure for investigation
• scientific tools for investigation and many more

Plus amendment of law is needed to award stringent punishment to those raising false complaints.

I am not aware about the situation in other states, but in states like Kerala, where NGOs and media are serving as watch dog, it is difficult for an SHO to prevent registration of FIR. The fact is that some of the complainants are taking advantage of this situation by simply adding some cognizable ingredient to their silly complaints for getting the FIRs registered. The man hours wasted by these false complaints are really high.

 many file complaints just 2 harass the other person....so its difficult 2 find which 1 is genuine.......i thnk it will make the job of policemen very tough ....

The police is paid by the Government for the job which they undertake. To conduct  investigation is their duty. The law has given them the vast power to decide as to which case should be sent to the court for trial and which should not be,in which case they should arrest and in which the investigation can proceed without arresting the accused, which case should be investigated and which case should be dropped (Sec 157 CrPC). They have not been compelled to join the police force. They have choosen this job and hence the word burden, over burden, loss of time or other nagging plea hold no water. They are full timers in Government Job and their job differs from the jobs of clerks. They have accepted the Police jobs after knowing their condition of service. The police should investigate impartially. If they find that ceratin cognizable section has maliciously been added to harass the accused they should prosecute the informant under section 182 or 211 IPC. The law is clear but the persons who should implement it are either incompetent or ill trained or ignorant or do their duties with malice. They may not be unfit in Police Department but certainly they are misfit in the job of an investigator.

Sec 182 and 211 are both non-cognizable offences. I do not know whether some one is punished under these sections. If these sections were enough to deal with false complainants, they would have ceased decades back.

I think the thread starter wanted to discuss the decision based on the ground reality, that is why I also shed light to the real scenario of the implementing agency.

I also shared the ideal situation as envisioned by Adil, long back when I too was young.

Cutting short, better working conditions is any employee's right in a democratic setup. The force is denied the same only because of the threat in the name of discipline.  The counterparts of executive who are in civil jobs earned it more or less, thanks to the union activities allowed to them by the democracy. The system imposed on our community by the colonial rulers before independence should change. Until then it doesn't matter whether it is  me or any other person join the police; the out put will be same. The ideal situation remains a dream.

Sir, under section  182 or 211 IPC (though non cog)  why not the police informs the court after forming the opinion on completion of the investigation of cognizable cases that the complainant had committed the offences punishable under section 182 or 211 IPC? If the law is not used by its enforcers, then this is their fault. Police forces are the trained forces. The can not equate themselves with the clerks.  How many police officers have submitted the report before the court that the investigations in cognizable cases have revealed the commission of offences under the above sections of IPC by the complainnat? While submitting report in final form under section 173(2) CrPC for discharging the accused in such cases they deviate from the facts and submit FRT report. They never  inform the Magistrate that the case is a false one and the complainnat should be taken to task. Police is the machinery of the Government and if it fails to discharge its duty the brunt is faced by the Government. Scotland Yard is not coming to enforce the law in India.  Last but not the least, I agree that we are not  aware of the convictions under section 182 or 211 IPC  and really how it can be  when the police or accused  do not lodge the complaint to the Magistrate against the complainnat. If  some sections of law is non cognizable , what difference does it make in prosecution and trial? Ignorance of law or shying off from the lawful duties by inefficients is becoming a practice and procedure and is emerging as a part of our system. This must be throttled at the very base by the pressure groups of the society.Law has nothing to do with  the infirm enforcers. It is the duty of the administration to replace the faulty parts of the machinery in prosecuting agencies .

Hi Friends,

I seek your help in this matter.

1) If a person has been acquitted in any criminal case and wants to lodge a complaint under section 182 IPC against the complainant. What are the options with him.

2) What if the police is not ready to file the case u/s 182 IPC against the complainant?

3) How and under which section can the person approch the court to get justice for himself.

4) how to file a complaint as per s182 of ipc can we give in our complaint to book under s182 or the decision rests with the police or should the judge direct the police can anyone please suggest and advise

Regards