Shubhkaran died in Haryana jurisdiction, says Jind SP

Amid continuing standoff where farm leaders and family of Shubhkaran have refused to allow his post-mortem and perform his last rites before an FIR was registered, BKU (Sidhupur) president Jagjit Singh Dallewal on Friday said that Punjab police officers in a meeting with farm representatives attributed the delay in registering FIR saying that the incident happened “in the jurisdiction of Haryana”.

Dallewal told The Indian Express over phone, “Our men were far away from the barricading. The government is dithering from acting on the matter. And this despite the Supreme Court guidelines that in such heinous crimes, a case should be registered immediately.”

At least two senior Punjab police officers, wishing not to be named, also told The Indian Express that FIR was not being registered due to “jurisdiction issue” with one of them saying that “Haryana has put barricading at quite a distance inside their territory and that during the agitation, a number of the tractor-trollies of agitating farmers were stationed in the Haryana territory at Punjab-Haryana border at Khanauri”.

ADGP Jaskaran Singh who was entrusted by Punjab to hold talks with farm leaders and Patiala Senior Superintendent of Police Varun Sharma were not available for comment despite calls and text messages.

Jind Superintendent of Police Sumit Kumar told The Indian Express, “There is no confusion that the incident happened in Haryana’s jurisdiction.” He added that barricading done by Haryana was “far inside the Haryana territory”. Distance wise, he said, it was “more than a kilometre” into Haryana side from Punjab-Haryana border.

Asked whether Haryana police had initiated any action, Kumar said, “We have not yet received post-mortem report [of Shubhkaran].” He said the family of the deceased was in touch with farm union leaders.”

A union home ministry advisory on May 10, 2013 on ‘Registration of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and Zero FIR’ among other things reads, “The hesitation to take up investigation of cases falling in uncertain territorial areas needs to be dispelled to allay the fears that it may be liable to be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Referring to two rulings of the Supreme Court and noted, “The legal position stated above expects that the police shall register an FIR upon receipt of information of the commission of a 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, the FIR may be appropriately transferred to the police station in which the case falls.”

It added, “Moreover, if at the time of registration of FIR, it becomes apparent that the crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the police station, the police should be appropriately instructed to register a ‘Zero’ FIR, ensure that the FIR is transferred to the concerned police station u/s 170 of the CrPC.”

The advisory further reads,” It should be clearly instructed that failure to comply with the instruction of registering an FIR on receipt of information about the cognizable offence will invite prosecution of the police officer u/s 166 A of the IPC for an offence specified u/s 166 A or departmental action or both”.

It also reads, “It may also be emphasized that police services should be sensitized to respond to complaints with alacrity whether is from a man or a woman. Apprehending the accused must take place immediately after the complaint as there is a tendency of the person committing the crime slipping away should there be a delay on extraneous grounds like jurisdiction. The police may also put in place a system of rewarding the personnel for timely response and punishment for wanton lethargy.”