A legal maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied” means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured person is available, but not promptly through immediate registration of an FIR and speedy trial under an expeditious legal system, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.
Under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC), the Station House Officer (SHO) is legally bound to register every piece of information about the commission of any cognisable offence.
Section 154 reads: “Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant…”
Even then, almost all the SHOs not only violate the mandatory directions under sections 154 and 155 of CrPC but have also been found guilty of defying the court orders for the registration of FIRs. They cause a miscarriage of justice in every such case and don’t care that the refusal or negligence by a police officer to register FIR exposes him to attract Section 29 of the Police Act, of 1861, yet.
Furthermore, according to Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 it has particularly been stated that every piece of information, recorded under Sections 154 and 155 of CrPC for offences whether cognisable or non-cognisable, “shall” be recorded in writing by the officer in charge of the police station. Therefore, the said Rule is binding upon the Police Officer since the word “shall” has been used for the said purposes. If a police officer is defiant of the same then action may and should be taken against him/her as to why he/she is defying the directions which are binding upon him/her, legislatively. There should be strict action taken against him/her under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution). All of this shall be read along with the provisions of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, particularly, Rule 25.54, where it is mandatory that in the daily dairy, a police officer has to mention everything. 
However, on the defiant attitude of the SHO, the complainants under Sections 22A and 22B of CrPC approach the lower courts and seek directions for the police to record their statements and register an FIR in case of the commission of a cognisable offence. This process increases the burden not only on the parties but also on the courts and police system as well.
The registration of an FIR is further delayed when a police report is sought by the courts, and adjournments are granted on the failure of filing such a report. Thus, justice is delayed in presence of special provisions of Section 22-A(6)(iii), CrPC. It explicitly provides that Sessions Judge acting as ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on a complaint regarding the non-registration of a criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities about its functions.
In defiance of the lower court’s order or the complainant’s failure at this stage, the door of the High Courts is knocked under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Higher Courts have to spend their precious time and suffer an unnecessary burden of work amidst an increasing backlog of other cases due to the defiant attitude of the police officers.
The police system under which the registration FIRs is delayed needs to be overhauled
Section 154 of CrPC makes an FIR the button which initiates the criminal justice system; if there is no FIR, there is no investigation and no conviction. Therefore, the importance of FIR has increased manifold with time. Some 100 years ago, an FIR was just information about an offence and then an investigation would start. Unfortunately, the investigation system could not be improved accordingly.
Also, there is a need for strengthening the investigation system. Refusal to register an FIR must be declared a penal offence having severe punishments for police officers. For this purpose, a new provision should be inserted in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC).
Furthermore, the digitisation of the process of FIR registration could boost and speed up the justice system. On the pattern of the Citizen Portal, which receives complaints online, also the applications for FIR registration should be accepted across the country to provide justice for everyone at their doorsteps. On submission of a complaint, orders should be made within 24 hours for the registration or non-registration of FIR. Within the next 48 hours, the complaint should be transferred to the court of a session judge for acceptance or rejection of the complaint, and an order of disciplinary action against the defiant police officer within 72 hours. In three cases of such negligence, the SHO concerned should be dismissed. Then the system could improve for the proper administration of justice.
As an immediate solution, the applications received by the Front Desks set up at the police stations be given the status of FIRs by legislation.
Simultaneously, malicious prosecution should be discouraged by strengthening Section 182 of PPC which reads: “Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false…shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine…”
Not to speak of the administration of criminal justice, even the initiation of judicial proceedings takes months or years thanks to our faulty system of justice. This criminal negligence on the part of police continues unabated even though a Sessions Judge is empowered to issue as ex-officio justice of peace appropriate directions to police authorities on a complaint regarding (i) non-registration of a criminal case; (ii) transfer of investigation from one police station to other (iii) to take notice of neglect, failure or excess committed by the police authority to relation in its functions and duties.
Under this law, the only jurisdiction which can be exercised by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace is to examine whether the information disclosed by the complainant did or did not constitute a cognisable offence. “If it did then direct the concerned SHO to record an FIR, without going into the veracity of the information in question and no more.” (PLD 2007 SC 539).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial rightly declared in a judgement that inordinate or long delay in the conclusion of a trial for no fault of the accused and his/her protracted detention without determination of guilt amounts to harassment and abuse of the process of law.
The worthy Chief Justice of Pakistan also remarked that “such delay can therefore be a valid ground for releasing the accused on bail and restoring his fundamental right to life and liberty”. The bench acknowledged the judgement relied upon by the counsel for the petition, recognising the ground of “shocking, unconscionable and inordinate delay” in the conclusion of the trial as a ground for granting the accused the relief of bail.
Here, some questions arise. If such delay in the conclusion of the trial of an accused is an infringement of his/her fundamental right to life and liberty, does the injured party seeking justice through the registration of an FIR not have the such right as a citizen of this country? Does the complainant not suffer a “shocking, unconscionable and inordinate delay” in the registration of an FIR?
Instead of expediting the process of registration of FIRs, the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) in 2019 made changes to Sections 22A/22B of CrPC thereby further complicating the registration of FIRs initially not entertained by police stations. NJPMC had made it mandatory for the complainant to approach the SP Complaints to obtain a report if the complainant’s FIR is not registered. However, the uncalled-for changes had been withdrawn on the protracted protests by the legal fraternity across the country.
It adversely affects the rights of the victim and creates future disincentives from filing or prosecuting cases. The delay in the initiation of a criminal trial also has a substantial impact on public confidence in the justice system.
Delay in administering justice negatively impacts not only the victim’s rights but also the accused’s rights. Caused by delay in the registration of FIRs, long trials may lead to loss of evidence, particularly eyewitness’ testimony, which increases or decreases the likelihood of conviction. Timely case filing is necessary as the victims have a very limited role to play in prosecuting a criminal case as delays in the initiation of the trial prevent victims from actively filing or pursuing the court proceedings.
Therefore, the process of FIR registration needs to be digitised and overhauled as it is one of the most important challenges faced by our criminal justice system and has a devastating effect on the credibility, transparency and public trust in the system.