CRIME DIARY: Policing system crafts hurdles to justice

Islamabad : In policing system of entire country, the act of lodging a First Information Report (FIR), the essential first step toward justice, is fraught with unnecessary complexities. What should be an accessible process for victims and complainants has evolved into a labyrinth of obstacles, creating a reality where justice feels like a distant goal.

The standard operating procedure (SoP) for registering an FIR demands the complainant to clear a series of approvals involving three levels of police officials. It starts with the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station, who hears the initial details of the complaint. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The next stage involves appearing before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), an official of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). At this level, the complainant’s ordeal deepens as availability becomes a recurring issue. Officers are often engaged in meetings or occupied with other commitments, forcing complainants into long, frustrating waits.

The final and most challenging hurdle lies with the Zonal Police Officer (ZPO), typically a Superintendent of Police (SP) or a higher-ranking official. This officer wields the ultimate authority to approve or reject the FIR. By the time complainants reach this stage, the timeline may have already stretched to weeks. Each visit to the police station increases the risk of encountering the same excuses: “The officer is in a meeting,” or “The officer is out on field duty.”

Top police officials often claim these measures ensure thorough checks and balances, but critics argue otherwise. Many believe this system is intentionally designed to minimize the number of FIRs registered. By creating insurmountable hurdles, the police can artificially lower the official crime rate, presenting a façade of control and safety within their jurisdictions. This strategy may serve the interests of the police hierarchy and their political overseers, but it leaves ordinary citizens disillusioned and helpless. Victims of crimes, especially those from marginalized and lower socio-economic backgrounds, often lack the resources, influence, or resilience to navigate this exhausting process. For many, the effort of pursuing justice feels like an unwinnable battle. Denying justice is policy or obstruction?

Critics also allege that the issue is compounded by political interference. Many top-ranking police officials focus on managing public perception of crime rather than addressing the root causes. By underreporting crimes such as street thefts or robberies, they appease political bosses who prefer a cleaner, more favourable image of their constituencies. The systemic hurdles become a tool to deny justice deliberately. Victims of crimes are further victimized by a process designed to frustrate their attempts to seek legal recourse. Without the ability to lodge an FIR, the path to justice is blocked before it even begins.

The consequences of this flawed system are dire. A culture of impunity grows, where perpetrators feel emboldened, and victims feel silenced. The erosion of trust in law enforcement undermines the fabric of society, leaving citizens to fend for themselves in an environment increasingly dominated by powerful elites.

The need for police reform is critical. Establishing an accessible, transparent, and victim-friendly mechanism for filing complaints would not only restore public confidence in law enforcement but also reinforce the principle of equal justice for all. Until such reforms are implemented, the crime diary will remain a sombre record—not of justice served but of victims silenced by a system more concerned with optics than accountability. This troubling reality underscores the urgent need for change, as the promise of justice remains elusive for those who need it most.