First Information Reports (FIRs)

The Delhi High Court has ruled that First Information Reports (FIRs) must be filed in cases of alleged fake encounters, which will strengthen legal accountability for police action.

Background:

• The petition was filed to challenge the orders directing registration of FIR against the police officers involved in the death of a person during an alleged encounter.
• Despite the SDM’s inquiry report claiming that the police fired in self-defence, the court insisted on further investigation to determine whether the encounter was genuine or a case of murder.
• The Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2013, emphasised that if the complaint suggested a cognizable offence, an FIR should be filed, even if it was ultimately a closure report rather than a charge sheet.
• The Court highlighted the 1997 letter of the National Human Rights Commission to the Chief Ministers, which stressed the need for proper investigation into extra-judicial killings by the police.

The First Information Report:

• A First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by the police when it receives information about a cognizable offence.
• It is an information report that reaches the police first in time, hence it is called a First Information Report.
• It is usually a complaint filed with the police by a person on behalf of or by the victim of a cognizable offence. Any person can report a cognizable offence either orally or in writing.
• The term FIR is not defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 or any other law.
• However, in police rules or laws, information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC is known as First Information Report (FIR).

There are three important elements of an FIR:

•  The information must relate to a cognizable offence.
• This information should be given to the head of the police station in written or oral form.
• It should be written and signed by the informant and its salient points should be recorded in the daily diary.

Status after FIR is registered:

• Police will investigate the case and collect evidence in the form of witness statements or other scientific material.
• The police can arrest the alleged persons as per the law.
• If there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of the complainant, a charge sheet will be filed. A final report will be submitted to the court mentioning that no evidence was found otherwise.
• If it is found that no crime has been committed, a cancellation report will be filed.
• If there is no trace of the accused person, an ‘Untraced’ report will be registered.
• However, if the court does not agree with the investigation report, it can order further investigation.

In case of refusal to register an FIR:

• Under Section 154 (3) of the CrPC, if a person is aggrieved by the refusal to register an FIR by the officer in charge of a police station, he can send a complaint to the concerned Superintendent of Police / DCP.
• If the Superintendent of Police / DCP is satisfied that such information discloses a cognizable offence, he shall either investigate the matter, or direct a subordinate police officer to investigate.=
• If the FIR is not registered, the aggrieved person can file a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC before the court concerned and if the court is satisfied that the complaint involves a cognizable offence, it can direct the police to register the FIR and take action.

Zero FIR:

• When a police station receives a complaint regarding an alleged crime committed in the jurisdiction of another police station, it registers an FIR and then transfers it to the concerned police station for further investigation.
• A similar FIR is called a ‘Zero FIR’.
• No regular number is given to the FIR. After receiving the FIR, the police registered a fresh case and started the investigation.

Cognizable offences and non-cognizable offences:

Cognizable offence:

• Cognizable offence is an offence in which the police can arrest a person without a warrant.
• The police itself is authorised to initiate an investigation into a cognizable case and no order from the court is required to do so.

Non-cognizable offences:

• Non-cognizable offence is an offence in which a police officer does not have the authority to arrest without a warrant.
• The police cannot investigate the crime without the permission of the court.
• FIR is registered under Section 155 of CrPC in case of non-cognizable offences.
• The complainant can approach the court for an order. The court can then direct the police to investigate the complaint of the complainant.

Difference between complaint and FIR:

• The CrPC defines a “complaint” as “any allegation submitted orally or in writing before a magistrate.” With a view to take action under this code that “any person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but this does not include a police report.”
• However, the FIR is a document prepared by the police after verifying the facts of the complaint. The FIR may contain details of the offence and the alleged offender.
• If based on the complaint it appears that a cognizable offence has been committed, an FIR will be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC, and the police will initiate an investigation. If no crime is found, the investigation is closed by the police.
• Recently, the Madras High Court observed that an idol has been treated as a juristic personality in law during a case involving the closure of a temple without customary worship for 10 years due to a dispute between communities on the issue of untouchability.
• The Court emphasized the responsibility of the administration to prevent the illegal closure of temples and to ensure the observance of the rights of worship.
• The court also held that the idol in the temple has the right to possess property and take legal action. The temple should remain open for worship and customary rituals.
• Considering the juridical personality of the idol while ensuring that the daily religious rituals continue, the court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the rights of the idols.
• “The principle of parens patriae, meaning” “guardian of the nation,” “is a legal principle that grants the state the inherent power and right to act as guardian / parent to those who are unable to care for themselves.”
• In India, this principle reflects the country’s commitment to protect the welfare and interests of its citizens.

The theory of parents patriae:

Background of Pooja Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others:

• The petitioner wife pleaded before the Allahabad High Court that she be appointed as the guardian of her husband who is in a permanent state of inactivity.
• She argued that this would enable her to dispose of her husband’s property to make ends meet.
• The petitioner contended that there is no law in India which provides for the appointment of a guardian for a person in an unconscious state, like it has a procedure for the appointment of a guardian for ‘minors’ and persons with other disabilities like mental retardation etc.

The court’s observations:

• The observations of the Court The Allahabad High Court held that “if the Court is satisfied that the person concerned is in an inactive state, certainly the ‘parents patriae’ jurisdiction can be exercised.”

The principle of parents patriae:

• The principle of parents patriae, meaning “parents of the nation,” is a legal principle that grants the state the inherent power and right to act as guardians for those who are unable to care for themselves.
• In India, this principle reflects the country’s commitment to protect the welfare and interests of its citizens.

History:

• The roots of the doctrine of parens patriae can be traced back to British common law.
• Historically, the king acted as the ultimate guardian of his subjects, especially in cases involving persons who were unable to represent their interests.

Which principle of parents patriae is applicable in India:

Juvenile Justice:

• Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the State is committed to act as a guardian for juvenile offenders.
• It focuses on rehabilitation and the best interests of the adolescent, in line with the principles of parents patriae.

The consumer protection:

• In consumer protection matters, the state often uses its parents patriae powers to protect the interests of consumers.
• The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowers the state to intervene in cases where consumers are exploited, and it provides a process for compensation and redressal.

The environmental issues:

• The state acts as a guardian of the environment, intervening in cases where activities pose a threat to ecological balance and public health.

Persons with Disabilities:

• The State applies this principle to take decisions on behalf of persons who are unable to take their own decisions due to certain disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Victims of mental health:

• The Mental Health Care Act, 2017, incorporates the principles of parents patriae in the context of mental health.
• The State has the right to protect and promote the rights of persons suffering from mental illness, to ensure their access to treatment and care.
• The landmark case referred to in this case E. (Mrs.) v. Eve (1986)
• The Supreme Court of Canada held that the doctrine must be always used with great care, this caution increasing with the seriousness of the case.
• This is particularly the case where the court may be tempted to take action because failure to take action would clearly risk placing a heavy burden on another person.

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors (2018):

• The Supreme Court held that this principle can be applied to the following situations.
• Where a person is mentally ill and is produced before the Court in a writ of habeas corpus, the Court may apply the above principle.
• On some other occasions, when a girl who is not a major has eloped with a person and is produced on an order of habeas corpus filed by her parents and she expresses fear of life in the custody of her parents, the court may take this step. The jurisdiction to send her to a suitable home means sheltering the women where her interests can be best taken care of till she attains adulthood.

Uma Mittal v. Union of India (2018):

• The Allahabad High Court applied this principle to make the wife the guardian of her husband.

Conversion of rivers into individuals:

• In a landmark judgment while hearing a PIL, the High Court of Uttarakhand has declared Ganga-Yamuna as a ‘living entity. “
• Being declared a living entity means that these two rivers will enjoy all constitutional rights like any other citizen of the country and harming them will be akin to harming a living person.
• As we know that earlier the gods and goddesses, religious books etc. installed in temples have been given the status of living entity by the court but this is the first time that an entity of environmental importance is being given the same rights as a living person. However, it is to be noted that the court has also used the word ‘Ganga Maiya’ while doing so.

Potential impact:

• The Uttarakhand High Court also directed the formation of the Ganga Management Board, giving legal rights to Ganga and Yamuna like living persons. It also made it clear that the central government would be free to take strict action along with the states which are reluctant to protect these rivers from encroachments and keep them clean.
• At present, it is difficult to say that this decision of the Nainital High Court cannot be ignored because despite all the interventions and orders of the judiciary in the past, along with Ganga and Yamuna, many other important rivers of the country remain neglected. They are also victims of encroachment along with pollution. The filth of some rivers is increasing to such an extent that their water is not even fit for irrigation.
• Ganga and Yamuna are not just rivers. They are symbols of the country’s culture. For a large population, they are the lifeblood and the centre of faith. It is not only necessary to worry about the uninterrupted flow of rivers, but it is also necessary to try to save their ecosystem. Without this, it will be difficult to preserve the religious, cultural and natural significance of the rivers.
• The waters of Ganga and Yamuna need to be harnessed in such a way that their ecosystem is not harmed. Before constructing dams on rivers in Uttarakhand, there should be a concrete assessment of the requirement of dams in the state.
• Governments should worry about economic gains only in so far as the life-giving capacity of rivers is not adversely affected. The initiative to save Ganga and Yamuna from pollution as well as encroachment should be in such a way that their flow is not obstructed.
• The Parliament of New Zealand has declared the 290 km long Whanganui River as a living entity, for this the Parliament of New Zealand duly passed a bill and made it a legal person giving rights, duties and responsibilities to its river. If India had taken a step in this direction by bringing a law in this way, it would have been more practical.