By Vineet Malik | March 12, 2024 | London, England
Despite several landmark judgments ruled by the Indian Constitutional Courts on mandatory guidelines to be followed upon receiving information of cognizable offence and register a First Information Report (FIR), the Police still most brazenly contravene the law of the land
Manubhai Patel, a Mumbai resident filed an application against the State Bank of India (SBI) with a plea to register an FIR at Malad Police Station on 7 November 2020. The application clearly revealed cognizable offences however, the police officers posted at Malad Police Station - a suburb in Mumbai West refused to register the crime by citing two reasons.
Incorrect Jurisdiction
Civil Matter
The Complainant was made to run from pillar to post for more than three years to seek justice from Mumbai police.
Furthermore, the police most brazenly, even after receiving the orders passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Bhagwan Narainrao Chikne at 24th Court, Borivali delayed the registration of the crime by four more days.
Who are these Two Senior Police Officers alleged to have Contravened the Judgments ruled by the Indian Constitutional Courts ?
Senior Police Inspector - George Fernandes then posted at Malad Police Station not only refused to register an FIR on receiving the criminal complaint filed by Patel on 7 November 2020 but also allegedly mislead the complainant, committed contempt of court and abetment of crime by deliberately transferring the complaint to another police station by citing the reason of incorrect jurisdiction and also termed the complaint as a civil matter.
The second Senior Police Inspector - Ravindra Adane currently incharge of Malad Police Station did not give heed to the orders passed by the Magistrate Court until four days passed from the date of such orders submitted by the complainant and received by Malad Police.
What does the Law Say ?
The Supreme Court of India (SC) in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Gov't of U.P and others in 2013 stated, "A Police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving any information relating to commission of cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Burking of crime leads to dilution of the rule of law in the short run and also has a very negative impact on the rule of law. Thus, non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to definite lawlessness in the society."
The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages :
It is the first step to 'access justice' for a victim.
It upholds the 'Rule of Law' in as much as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the state.
It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of 'ante-dates' FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.
Breach of the duty should become an offence punishable in law to prevent misuse of the power by the police officer.
166-A (b). of Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys the law, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation shall be punished with a rigorous imprisonment for a term of which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable for fine.
A police officer is duty bound to register a case on the basis of information of the commission of cognizable offence. Further, if after registration of FIR, upon investigation it is found that the subject matter relates to the jurisdiction of some other police station in which the case falls, the police should register “ZERO” FIR, ensure that the FIR is transferred to the concerned police station u/s 170 of the CRPC.
The delay over the determination of the jurisdiction leads to avoidable wastage of time which impacts on the victim and also leads to offenders getting an opportunity to slip away from the clutches of the law. Failure to comply with the instructions of registering an FIR on receipt of the information about the cognizable offence invites prosecution
of the police officer under section (us) 166A of the IPC for an offence specified u/s 166A or departmental action or both.
Mumbai Police Ignored the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) Directions pertaining to mandatory Registration of FIRs by Police
In 2019, the MSHRC ruled an order that imposed a penalty of INR2,00,000 / £2000 against Additional Chief Secretary to be paid in the form of compensation to the complainant - an elderly woman for failing to register the FIR immediately and violating her human rights.
To ensure the police register FIRs promptly, then MSHRC acting Chairman - M.A Sayeed also recommended the State Director General of Police to circulate the SC guidelines cited in the Lalita Kumari case on registration of FIRs to all the police stations for strict implementation and to meet the ends of justice.
Corrupt Public Servants are Anti Nationals
The Gujarat High Court in the matter of Dr. Rajesh Chandulal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat in 2018 stated, "Corrupt public servants / police officers are anti national and more dangerous that the hired assassins. That, it is rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by high placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If the society in a developing country faces menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, than it is from corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the government and of political Parties.”
The Revelation questioned the senior police officers about the given incident.
However, despite sending a reminder, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) - Renuka Vishal Bagde and Regional Additional Commissioner of Police - Rajiv Jain - Indian Police Service (IPS) failed to respond till date.
Comments