Delay In FIR Affects Private Employee
As one of the laptops and a phone belonged to his employer, the company demanded that he either submit an FIR copy as the proof of theft or bring a laptop to attend to his duties.
Hyderabad:A 28-year-old private employee was left frustrated after Begumpet police allegedly delayed registering a first information report (FIR) even though he submitted clear CCTV footage showing a theft at his residence — an ordeal reportedly faced by thousands of people across India.
The engineer, N Sai Babu, who works in a networking support role for a private company, lost two laptops and three mobile phones. As one of the laptops and a phone belonged to his employer, the company demanded that he either submit an FIR copy as the proof of theft or bring a laptop to attend to his duties.
Sai Babu lodged a complaint with the Begumpet police on August 3, along with the submission of CCTV footage. But the police did not act upon the complaint.
The complainant stays in a rented house along with his friends at Pochamma Basti within the Begumpet police limits.
"The miscreant stole two laptops and three mobile phones and then walked away. The entire incident was captured by CCTV cameras installed at the premises. I lodged a complaint with the police, but it took them a long time to act. When I informed my office, they asked me to submit an FIR copy as proof of the offence or bring a laptop to resume regular work," the complainant said.
A constable from the detective wing of Begumpet police, after verifying the CCTV footage, opined that the miscreant might be a member of a gang from Tamil Nadu. The police kept summoning the complainant to the police station repeatedly, but they did not register the FIR.
When contacted, detective inspector G Srinivas said he had been on leave for the past week and would register the FIR and begin the investigation upon resuming duty.
The registration of the FIR by the police is governed by Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The section reads thus: “Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence — irrespective of the area where the offence is committed — may be given orally or by electronic communication. If given to an officer in charge of a police station, orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it… and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer.”
If the police officer does not record the complaint under FIR, Section 173(4) says the complainant can send such information to the Superintendent of Police.
In its verdict in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that “Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognisable offence. No preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.”