The Delhi Police may have escaped censure by the Supreme Court for the time being by registering FIRs on sexual harassment complaints raised by top women wrestlers, but there is a pall of silence about the victims’ plea in court to prosecute police officers for allegedly delaying the action.
On April 25, the court said the sexual harassment allegations levelled by the wrestlers, including a minor, against BJP MP and Wrestling Federation of India chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh were “serious”.
The wrestlers repeatedly sought the prosecution of the police officers who did not register an FIR on their complaints, which had forced them to approach the top court in the first place.
On April 26, the Delhi Police made an urgent mentioning in the apex court with a rather vague submission that it “felt” that “some preliminary inquiry” was necessary before registration of an FIR. In a way, the police may have been simply trying to explain away the delay. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the police, did not clarify in court if the “preliminary inquiry” was intended to verify if there was a cognisable offence made out in the complaints of the women wrestlers or whether the police wanted to check the very veracity of the allegations of sexual abuse raised by the wrestlers, including the minor.
On April 28, the police, without offering any explanation or giving any insight into whether the preliminary inquiry was conducted, agreed to register the FIR.
The conduct of the police officers in delaying the FIR and making a blank mention of a “preliminary inquiry” may have to be examined by the Supreme Court on the touch stone of its own Constitution Bench judgment in the Lalita Kumari case.
“Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the information discloses commission of a cognisable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation,” the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam (retired) had held a unanimous verdict in November 2013.
The judgment, laying down the law, had held that preliminary inquiry should only be conducted to ascertain whether a cognisable offence was disclosed in the complaint or not.
“The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognisable offence,” the apex court had held.
The Constitution Bench had held that police officers cannot avoid their duty of registering an FIR if a cognisable offence was disclosed in a complaint.
Here, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, for the women wrestlers, had submitted that sexual harassment of a minor amounted to a cognisable offence. The apex court itself, on perusal of the women’s complaints, had found them “serious” and called for an urgent hearing. The complaint of the minor was handed over to the court in a sealed cover. The court had ordered the complaint to be re-sealed and kept confidential to protect her from threats.
The Constitution Bench, in the Lalita Kumari verdict, had made it a point to hold that “action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received discloses a cognisable offence”.
“An FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure of our country and its main object from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty,” the Constitution Bench highlighted the pivotal role of the FIR in criminal justice process.
