The gruesome and dastardly rape and murder of a woman veterinarian in Hyderabad, where her body was savagely charred by the perpetrators, has shaken the conscience of the nation. But what has even more shocking, humiliating and an addition of insult to injury was the denial of Shamsabad police to register the First Information Report (FIR) citing it to be beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
So, apart from the public displeasure and angst about recurrence of such heinous crimes, a distinct debate has began about the police inaction in registering FIR in such situations on the basis of such vague technicalities like, ‘being beyond jurisdiction.’
A ‘crime’ is the genus of such offences which are punishable under criminal law, weighed as being against the society at large. So, the solemn policy of law is to forge a medium of expeditious registration of reports about such grave and cognizable offences, so that the volatility of the events don’t afford an opportunity to the perpetrators to escape from the clutches of law and the culprits are meaningfully brought to justice. In criminal jurisprudence, First Information Report (FIR) about a cognizable offence is elementary to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of UP has held that “registration of First Information Report is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the information discloses commission of a cognisable offence.” But the question that looms large is about the due access and feasibility to lodge FIR, as it is a pan-India syndrome that police often refuse to register FIR in cases pertaining to heinous offences relating to women. In such an event the policy of law to facilitate efficient and expeditious registration of FIR is summarily frustrated and the accused escapes the domain of law with ease.
However, this has been effectively answered and redressed within the scheme of the existing criminal law. The Justice Verma Committee Report recommended the provision of Zero FIR, after the December 2012 gang rape of a 23-year-old girl in Delhi. Normally, what is understood of registration of FIR is that, it is registered by a serial number in the police station having adequate territorial jurisdiction to investigate the alleged crime. But in a welcome departure from this practice, a Zero FIR can be registered in any police station where the information about a cognisable offence is registered, irrespective of whether it has got territorial jurisdiction or not, but such FIR shall not be numbered and then be forwarded to the police station with jurisdiction, where it gets numbered and investigation commences.
There are Supreme Court verdicts, where this policy of law has been reiterated in public interest. Like in State of AP Vs Punati Ramulu and others, the court held that “Any lack of territorial jurisdiction should not have prevented the constable from recording information about cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.” In another progressive verdict, in Satvinder Kaur Vs Government of NCT, Delhi, the Supreme Court held that, “even after investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence.”
After the Nirbhaya incident, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has issued umpteen numbers of guidelines to the States for registration of Zero FIR, and having relying on these advisories issued by the MHA, a the division bench of the Karnataka High Court, on September 19, 2019, has issued directions on the basis of a PIL petition filed by advocate S Umapathi that, “Even if the alleged offence has been committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, FIR shall be still registered and the same shall be transferred to the appropriate police station. Besides, it is held that “The police officers should be clearly informed that the failure to comply with the direction of registration of FIR and receipt of information about cognisable offence may invite prosecution of the police officer under section 166-A of Indian Penal Code and it may also invite departmental action against them.”
However, with due respect to the institution of police, we can’t deny that there are plenty of instances where police have palpably failed in keeping its cadres to respect the judicial innovation of Zero FIR. This is not about just law, it is the minimum thing we can afford to a citizen, whose right to life and liberty has been guaranteed by the State and which is alleged to have been infringed by outlaws. It can’t be denied that, in a rule of law society like India, the least thing the State can guarantee is, easy access to vent grievance and its due registration in case of serious cognizable offences, in a way that doesn’t humiliate the aggrieved person and is tempered with minimum humanity. Can we as a nation, allow our daughters, sisters, mothers to beg for a just hearing, when already their soul is numb with pain.
(The writer is a lawyer and can be reached at sjyotiranjan3@gmail.com)
