Opinion WFI protest: The delay in filing FIRs by the police is demoralising — and illegal

During the hearing of the petition before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandachud, the Delhi police on April 28, registered two FIRs. The sit-in protest by the wrestlers at Jantar Mantar had entered its sixth day by then. The Delhi police had previously stated that they need more time to do a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.

The delay on the part of the police in registering an FIR is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2013). Lalita Kumari was a minor girl who was kidnapped in Uttar Pradesh. Her father, Bhola Kamat, submitted a written complaint to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned but the police officers did not take any action. The FIR was registered after Kamat knocked on the doors of the Superintendent of Police. Even after the FIR was registered, the police did not seriously investigate the kidnapping or make any substantial efforts to locate Lalita Kumari.

This inaction forced Kamat to invoke the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction by filing a habeas corpus petition. While hearing the petition, the Court observed that there is a disparity in the registration of FIRs and there are differing judgments on whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR as soon as information regarding a cognizable offence is disclosed under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A cognizable offence, as defined in the CrPC, is an offence for which a police officer is authorised to arrest the accused without a warrant. It applies to heinous and serious offfences, such as murder, kidnapping, rape, and sexual harassment, to name a few.

After observing the conflicting nature of previous judgments, the Court referred the case to a Constitution Bench. The Bench led by then CJI P Sathasivam framed eight guidelines to be followed by the police in all states and Union Territories across India while registering FIRs. The Bench in its judgment stated that if the information received by the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, then registration of an FIR is mandatory. No preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

“The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence,” the court had observed in its judgment.

While answering the question about preliminary inquiries, the Court had ordered that, if they are needed, they must be time-bound and not exceed seven days. This was modified in a 2014 order, through which the time limit for finishing the preliminary inquiry was raised to 15 days generally and six weeks in exceptional cases. The Court also clarified that the preliminary inquiry could only be conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not and the scope of the inquiry shall be restricted to that extent.

The former WFI president has been accused of offences under Section 354A of the IPC (sexual harassment of the nature of unwelcome physical contact and advances or a demand or request for sexual favours) and Section 11 of the POCSO Act (acts which amount to sexual harassment of a minor). Both of these are cognizable offences and therefore the Delhi police needed to register an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC as soon as they received information regarding the commission of these offences. No preliminary inquiry can be permitted when the information clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. For the sake of argument, even if the inquiry were to be conducted, it should have been initiated in January itself, within 15 days of the allegations surfacing for the first time.

The police had been reluctant to file an FIR even though the allegations were levelled in January. The delay of three months despite there being unambiguous and strong allegations along with information disclosing the commission of multiple cognizable offences is deplorable. Keeping aside any and all presumptions one might have as to the political pressure behind the non-registration of the FIR against the BJP MP and viewing this objectively from a legal perspective, the stand of the police is in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari case. The police ought to have registered the FIR as soon as they received knowledge of the offence of sexual harassment under the IPC and the POCSO Act.

The DCW had, on April 26, recommended registering an FIR against the police officers under Section 166A of the IPC for this legal violation.

This is not the first time that the Delhi police have delayed the registration of an FIR against people wielding considerable political power and influence. The police registered an FIR in the 2021 Dharam Sansad hate speech case after a delay of more than five months. The incident occurred on December 19, 2021, and the FIR was registered in May 2022. Even then, no action against the officers responsible for the delay was taken.

In June 2022, a deceased woman’s mother moved the Patiala House Court seeking registration of the FIR against her late daughter’s boyfriend, whom she accused of torturing and instigating her daughter to commit suicide. In her complaint to the Court, she mentioned that the matter was reported to the police but to no avail. The Delhi Police registered an FIR against the man only after the Court’s direction.

Since 2013, when the guidelines were laid down, there have barely been any instances where the Courts have taken suo moto cognizance of the delay in registering an FIR and ordered action against erring police officers. The consequence of this leniency is the impunity with which the police officers refuse to register the FIRs and their cavalier attitude towards the citizens who try to report the commission of cognizable offences.

Litigants have to often file petitions before the Courts to initiate police action. Even when the Courts in such petitions direct the police to register the FIRs, they fail to take suo moto cognizance of the violations of the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The fact that our Olympians and World Champions had to approach the Supreme Court for the registration of an FIR is a lamentable comment on the accessibility of justice to the common public.

The judiciary must strictly enforce the guidelines for the registration of FIRs. The legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” must be interpreted in a wider sense to bring into its fold the inaction of the police in registering the FIRs, as well as the inaction of the Courts in taking suo moto cognizance of the violations of the Lalita Kumari guidelines.

The writer is a law student at the University of Delhi