IN my recent interaction with the police regarding registration of an FIR in a serious cognizable offence, I had the opportunity to closely observe the working of the police department which I would like to share with people.

Ideally, the police should record a cognizable offence as soon as it is reported to them and take immediate action.

Under the law, the SHO is required to either record the statement of a complainant himself or direct a responsible officer to do so and if a cognizable offence is made out in view of the complainant's statement, the police have no authority to refuse or delay registration of an FIR.

But contrary to the law, what the police do is avoid registering even a non-causal report (NC report), let alone registering the FIR. Not only cases of ordinary day-to-day crimes but at times even serious cognizable offences also fail to evoke a response from the police.

In a majority of cases, even writing to senior police officials does not help. What these officials do is send the complaint one tier down the tall hierarchy the police department has.

Thus a complaint for non-registration of an FIR sent to the Capital City Police Officer (CCPO ) is forwarded by his office to the Zonal DIG, who marks it down to the Town SSP, from where it is sent to the SPO of the police station concerned and from there the complaint finally lands on the table of the SHO — the very person who in the first instance either refused or adopted dilatory tactics to register the FIR.

Given the police mentality, it is highly unlikely that the SHO would review his earlier stance and register an FIR after receiving the marked copy of the complaint.

The registration of an FIR is the first step towards the process of starting an investigation into a cognizable offence. Needless to say, delay on the part of the police only helps the offender, and the aggrieved party has to suffer as a result. Certainly, no society can accept such a situation.

According to the CPLC website, non-registration of an FIR is an offence and can be a ground for disciplinary action against the police officer concerned. It is another matter altogether that erring officers go unpunished for this offence, even in cases where their mala fide intentions are too apparent to be excused.

Complaints about non-cooperation or failure of the police to register an FIR in cognizable offences should be taken with utmost seriousness by senior police officials as people write to them only after they fail to get police help at the local police station level. An explanation should immediately be called from the SHO concerned.

In case the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory, an inquiry may be ordered into the matter and if criminal negligence is established, the delinquent police officer should be strictly proceeded against as provided under the law.

Particularly cases where a complainant is compelled to move a District and Sessions Court against the SHO concerned, and the court decides the matter in favour of the complainant, directing the SHO to register an FIR should not fail to evoke a quick response from senior police officials.

In such cases, costs of the suit (legal fees paid by the complainant to a lawyer for pleading his case before the court, compensation for loss of at least two working days, conveyance to and back from the court, etc.) should also be recovered from the SHO and paid to the aggrieved complainant.

Unless a proper system of accountability is put in place and police officers acting unlawfully are dealt with strictly, people will continue to face unnecessary difficulties in getting police help at the police station level.

No government sensitive to people's problems and sufferings should allow this to happen.

AHMAD FAKIR MUHAMMAD
Karachi