How is the Indian Judiciary Irradicating the Territory Rules related to the First Information Report?

Zero FIR, No Restrictions!

In criminal law, FIR stands for the first information about an offence given by any of the first informants relating to a cognizable case. According to the relevant sections of IPC & CrPC, it becomes the legal and moral responsibility of the police officer to record the FIR on awareness of such information. The FIR also occupies a special position in the judicial system because it forms the basis of the criminal justice system.

The Issue of Territorial Jurisdiction

According to the CrPC, an FIR has to be recorded in the police station where the police officer belongs to the area where the purported offence had taken place. The territorial limitation has presented numerous difficulties in prosecuting criminals apprehended in connection with interstate crimes, cybercrimes, or situations where the crime impacts several regions.

For instance, in a case of criminal aspect performed in one state while the victim resides in another state then the victim cannot report FIR due to jurisdictional matters. There have also been cases whereby the police declined to take down the FIR on the basis of the fact that the offence occurred in another station. This leads to spiking of cases and denial of justice and this creates a large gap in the operation of the legal jurisdiction.

Judicial Intervention to Overcome Territorial Challenges

The Indian judiciary has played an instrumental role in eradicating the rigid application of territorial jurisdiction rules concerning FIR registration. Several landmark judgments have helped establish a more flexible approach to ensure justice for victims, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.

1. Greater Focus on Victim’s Rights: Courts have opined that the fundamental rights of a victim, particularly those under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), must prevail over territorial considerations. In various judgments, courts have instructed the police to register FIRs based on the nature and seriousness of the offence and not because it took place in a particular place. It must not be hindered by territorial considerations of bureaucracy while dealing with the rights of a victim to seek justice.
2. National Crimes and Interstate Jurisdiction: The judiciary has also dealt with cases that involve crimes spread across more than one state or jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that in cases of interstate crimes, the FIR can be filed in any jurisdiction connected with the crime. It has become easier for the victims who face jurisdictional barriers to access justice without the fear of their case being dismissed due to territorial limitations.
3. Cybercrimes and Online Offences: With the increase in cybercrimes that are often committed across the physical boundaries of states or even countries, the judiciary recognized that there was a necessity to be flexible with respect to the jurisdiction of the registration of FIR.

It was held in various cases that the jurisdiction for a cybercrime could be drawn either from the place where the victim resides or where the accused resides, even though the actual commission took place in a different territory. This has bridged a gap for those aggrieved by cybercrimes such as fraud, hacking, and defamation, and ensured that FIRs are registered without unnecessary delay.

1.  Transfer and Supervisory Role of Higher Courts through FIR: The Judiciary has been extremely active in cases where a police station fails to register an FIR on grounds of territorial jurisdiction by either making the concerned authorities register the FIR or transfer the matter to the appropriate district.

The superior courts have also invoked Article 226 of the constitution and affirmatively ordered the registration of FIRs and investigation when necessary to prevent justice from being aborted on legal formalities.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary has made significant strides in addressing the issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in FIR registration. Through judicial intervention and the emphasis on protecting victims’ rights, the courts have broken down the barriers set by overly rigid rules of territoriality. Consequently, plaintiffs in cases today have a greater chance of reception around jurisdiction that protects their rights under the law. Thus, the developing judicial stance on registering an FIR is a testament to India’s commitment to allowing access to justice for all, beyond geographical barriers.