Report No. 239
7. Some measures that may be directed to be taken by the Police after FIR is received/recorded
(i) A copy of FIR concerning the involvement of influential public men in cognizable crimes, apart from being sent to the Magistrate, should also be forwarded to SP/SSP concerned.
(ii) The investigation should be taken up promptly and with expedition [unless the police officer concerned forms an opinion under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1) Cr.P.C]. The SP/SSP shall, from time to time, get reports from the SHO regarding the course and progress of investigation and issue suitable instructions. He may render such assistance as may be required by the SHO in this regard, to wit, providing additional police force, securing reports from the forensic science laboratories expeditiously etc.
(iii) The investigation shall be completed as far as possible within three months and at any rate not later than six months. The charge-sheet shall be filed within a month thereafter along with requisite documents properly indexed. A copy of the draft charge-sheet to be sent to SP/SSP for vetting.
(iv) The FIR, the statement of accused and witnesses examined and the record prepared by I.O. from time to time should be computerized so that they could be made available to all concerned in an electronic form (non-re-recordable compact disc).
(v) The I.O., SP/SSP should be held personally responsible for the failure to ensure that the investigation is completed within the specified time limit and they shall face disciplinary proceedings for non-compliance, unless they establish that reasonably diligent steps were being taken by them. The responsibility lies with the DGP to initiate such disciplinary action as may be warranted.
(vi) The SP/SSP should maintain a record of FIRs in respect of influential public persons so as to enable him to keep track of such cases from time to time.
(vii) In cases involving influential public personalities, resort to S. 164 Cr. P.C. should be made more frequently.
(viii) While investigation of offences under the provisions of Cr. P.C. is the exclusive domain of the police, the Judl. Magistrate should have limited role to play to counter the moves of persons in influential positions to subvert the effective process of investigation. Accordingly, the I.O. shall bring to the notice of Magistrate the bottlenecks, if any, that are coming in the way of speedy investigation including the attempts being made by the accused to hinder the investigation.
The Magistrate shall, apart from taking such steps as are permissible under law, for example, issuing summons for the production of documents in the custody of suspect/accused/or a third party, may also send up a report to the District Judge for appropriate action on the administrative side to eliminate delays..
(ix) In respect of serious crimes i.e. cognizable and punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more irrespective of whether public men are involved, if investigation has not been completed within 6 months, a report has to be submitted by the I.O. to the SP/SSP who shall take necessary action to ensure completion of investigation. The SPs/SSPs should maintain a register of such cases where there are delays in investigation and should take remedial steps to remove the bottlenecks.
(x) The photograph of the accused and full address/phone numbers, e-mail I.D. if any, shall be obtained and the photos be affixed to the arrest Memo and charge-sheet. (This is being done in some States e.g. Maharashtra).
(xi) The Police should take requisite steps to ensure proper and prompt maintenance of medico-legal registers maintained at the hospitals.
7.1 Duty of police in cases where there are no formal complaints: Whenever credible information is received by the police (SHO) that a cognizable crime is committed by a public servant or an important public personality, it is his duty to register the crime. For instance, the corruption may be exposed by sting operations which are aired in TV or published in media. They should act on them, subject to verification of the authenticity of report. Anirudha Bahal's case, 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 268 decided by Delhi High Court brings to light the lapse of police in this regard.
7.2 In this context, it is pointed out that the provisions contained in Sections 154 and 157 read with Section 156 confer sufficient powers on the Police officer to initiate investigation.
7.3 Whenever statutory sanctions are required for prosecution of public servants and others, the Government concerned should act with expedition. Normally, it should be done within 3 or 4 months. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. ManmohanSingh, 2010 (2) SCALE 12). The Secretary in charge of the Department should ensure this.