Reforming the FIR system: Part - II

In the first part o f this article, published yesterday ( ), I had outlined what is wrong with the present FIR system. In this part, I attempt to find out a solution to the six problems listed in Part I.

I had presented a comprehensive and centralised new model on incident and crime reporting by the public to the government in 2013. It won over a number of converts including some key provincial ministers but could not be taken to its logical conclusion. Leaving the past aside for the moment, the present government’s declared and welcome emphasis on police reforms presents another opportunity to address this most critical part of the criminal justice system.

To begin with, we should take a step back and take a larger view of the issue. The problem is not to ensure ‘free registration of FIRs’. This would be disastrous in our society, where honesty and truth are elusive commodities, and would no doubt result in soiling the reputation of many innocent persons. The real issue is to set up a mechanism where the public can report crime or other incidents to the police in an easy and hassle-free manner, and the police are then held accountable for timely action in relation to those reports. The point is that we need not be wedded to the word ‘FIR’ any longer.

The present law must be changed to abolish the distinction between ‘cognizable’ and ‘non-cognizable’ offences, thus allowing citizens and the police to deal with matters that are of concern to the public but which do not, prima facie, involve criminality. This will eliminate the need for citizens to lie on their applications in order to make the matter cognizable for the police and also lessen, though perhaps not altogether eliminate, the need to pay bribes to get the police to become involved in resolving the dispute. This should be done in conjunction with Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms, thus reducing the burden on the courts and the investigative wing of the police.

Every intimation to the police of an incident, including possible crime, would be done through an ‘Incident Report’ or (in Urdu) ‘Report Waqia’. The submission of the report would be made free, certain and extremely easy including through phone, email, social media and, of course, the old-fashioned hard copy. Electronic submission of the form would generate an e-ticket number that the citizen could then use to track their application.

While the filing of the incident report would be free and in the hands of the citizens, the decision as to whether the reported incident warrants the launch of criminal proceedings akin to the present-day FIR and a proper investigation would be up to the head of police (DPO/CPO/CCPO) in each administrative district who would have dedicated personnel whose sole task would be to assist him or her in making this decision within pre-set timelines.

The present criminal justice system, starting with the registration of the FIR, is complainant-driven. Currently, the FIR that eventually comes to be registered is a word-for-word re-recording of the written application by a complainant given for the purpose of registration of FIR. The problem is that complainants, especially in personal enmity cases, seldom tell the truth and the application for registration of FIR, far from being an initial basic intimation of an alleged crime, is, in fact, a carefully drafted document. This document is put together by paid lawyers who word it so that, regardless of the actual facts, a powerful if often false case is made out against their rivals and as many family members of the complainant’s opponent are implicated as is possible.

In the new system, the police, on behalf of the state, would be the ‘complainant’ in each case they determine is fit for criminal investigation – for, after all, it is the state’s peace that has been disturbed by the commission of the reported crime. While the statement of the complainant would still be part of the case file – it may even be part of the first ‘case diary’ – the decision as to which section to apply (for example, whether to apply the section for robbery or that for theft), who to arrest and which witnesses to call etc, will be made by the police during and after their investigations and not done on the basis of the invariably concocted story contained in the application for FIR or FIR in the present system.

While describing the specific nuts and bolts of the proposed new system is beyond the scope of this piece, suffice it to say all the six major issues which were highlighted in part I of this article, with reference to the current FIR system, stand fully or significantly addressed. Most importantly, this would allow for free reporting by the public and also give the police the freedom to decide which cases to investigate formally and proceed in a neutral manner free from the biases and ulterior motives of the complainant. This would be in line with international best practices as, for example, the London Metropolitan Police receives close to a million reports of crimes committed in London every year but properly investigates only a small fraction of these reported crimes.

A number of safeguards would be built into the new system being proposed to ensure that the cases reported to a central reporting database and server under the DPO are evaluated within a specified time and any decision by the police to refuse to launch criminal investigations can be challenged by the complainant before a higher authority. While not every DPO can be assumed to be honest or able to stand up to political pressure, the chances of him or her doing the right thing are much higher than would be the case with regard to an SHO.

Ideally, this new system would be part of the larger police reforms instituted in the province and should be implemented on a trial basis in two selected districts of Punjab following passage of appropriate legislation allowing for two systems to exist in parallel for a short time in order to test the efficacy of the new arrangement. This reform would work best if it is part of a larger change of tack in the Punjab police, aimed at transforming it from what it is today – largely an operational entity and fire-fighting force – into a service whose primary concern is investigating and solving crime.

Concluded

The writer is a freelance contributor.

Email: thereluctantcolumnist@gmail.com