By Dr Abhishek Atrey
A few days after a Zero FIR was filed in connection with the May 4 incident in Manipur where two women were stripped and paraded in Thoubal district, another Zero FIR was filed pertaining to the alleged abduction, rape and murder of two Kuki-Zomi women on May 5. In this case too, it took the authorities more than a month to transfer the complaint to the relevant police station in Imphal East.
In the second incident, two young Kuki-Zomi women, aged 21 and 24, who worked at a car wash in Imphal East, were “brutally murdered” in their rented accommodation “after being raped and gruesome(ly) tortured by some unknown persons”, believed to be “about 100-200” in number. On May 16, based on the statement of the younger victim’s mother, a Zero FIR was registered at Saikul police station in Kangpokpi district, the hometown of both victims.
So what is a Zero FIR, in which circumstances can it be registered and what is the law related to it? The concept of zero FIRs is relatively new and meant to place a legal obligation on officers to register an FIR despite lack of jurisdiction. They are meant to speed up the process of investigation for cognisable offences.
The term Zero FIR is not defined in Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or even in the recent Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill 2023, presented in the Lok Sabha with the intention of replacing the CrPC. Section 154 of the CrPC, which deals with registration of an FIR by police officers in cognizable offences, nowhere states that the first information is to be given only in the police station within territorial jurisdiction of which the offence is committed. This ambiguity is being removed in the proposed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill of 2023, in which Section 173 deals with registration of an FIR which specifically uses the words “irrespective of the area where offence is committed”.
The non-registration of an FIR by a police officer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction came before the Supreme Court first in State of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu 1994. Here the Court held that it was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the constable who refused to record the complaint saying that the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. The Court held that any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area where the crime was said to be committed.
The issue of territorial jurisdiction of a police station again came before the Supreme Court in Satwinder Kaur vs State (NCT of Delhi), where it held that if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then the FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or to investigate it.
Thereafter, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs Government of UP (2014) authoritatively directed that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. The Court further directed that the police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the offence if the cognizable offence is disclosed, and action must be taken against the erring officer who does not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
In view of the mandate of Section 154 CrPC and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several matters, there is a practice in India that whenever information regarding any cognizable offence is received in a police station which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the area where offence is committed, an FIR with zero number can be registered and forwarded to the police station which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. Such an FIR is called as a Zero FIR. This practice was again recognised by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Ashok Kumar Sharma (2021).
Recently in Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei and other connected matters related to the violence in Manipur, while taking cognizance of media reports regarding the inhumane parade of two naked girls of the Kuki community by a mob, the Court sought a report from the state government on several points. This includes how many regular FIRs and Zero FIRs were registered pertaining to the violence in Manipur.
In response to this, Manipur filed an affidavit stating that between May 3-July 30, a total of 6,523 FIRs were registered, 150 deaths were reported and 502 people reported injured. The state further reported that there were 5,101 cases of arson, 252 persons were arrested in connection with FIRs and 12,740 preventive arrests were made. The state further informed that 11 FIRs involved cases of violence against women and children. The Court then appointed a committee comprising of three retired women High Court judges to monitor the investigation in these cases.
Therefore the law on registration of FIRs is clear—it is the duty of police officers of every police station to register an FIR as soon as a complaint is made to them, whether orally or in writing, by any victim or any other person regarding commission of a cognizable offence. In case that police officer comes to the conclusion that the offence is not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that police station, it is his duty to register a Zero FIR and forward it to the concerned police station.
When it is clear that a cognizable offence has been committed, it is not permissible for any police officer to conduct any preliminary enquiry regarding the truthfulness of the complaint before registration of an FIR. In Lalita Kumari judgment, the scope of preliminary inquiry was confined only to the extent of verifying as to whether from contents of the complaint any cognizable offence was made out or not. And if from the contents of the complaint any cognizable offence is made out and that police officer refuses to register an FIR, it is definitely a case of contempt of the Supreme Court on the part of that police officer and appropriate action may be taken against him.
But it is debatable what action was taken against police officers refusing to register FIR on the complaints of cognizable offences. After their refusal, the victim has to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The magistrate can use his discretion and either order the registration of an FIR or proceed under Section 200 CrPC. As such, the Constitution bench judgment in Lalita Kumari has become redundant in the hands of police officers and they are still doing whatever they want in registering FIRs in selective cases at selective times. In the rest of the cases, the victims have to knock on the doors of courts where again no orders are passed against erring police officers for non registration of FIRs.
—The writer is Advocate-On-Record, Supreme Court