Rule 24.4 of Punjab Police Rules: Coincidence of 24th April (24/4)

A Unique Coincidence: Rule 24.4 on 24th April

It is an interesting coincidence that on the 24th of April, 2024, we focus on Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a provision addressing police discretion when dealing with information about alleged cognizable offences. As we dive into this topic, we consider how this rule has evolved and its implications in the context of modern law enforcement, particularly in light of concerns about potential abuse and misuse.

Background of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934

The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, originally framed under the now-repealed Police Act, 1861 (with reference to Punjab State), represent a comprehensive framework guiding the conduct, organisation, and responsibilities of the Punjab Police. The repealing act, the Punjab Police Act, 2007, clearly states that until new rules are framed, the old rules shall continue to be in force, and thus these rules remain valid and effective in the state of Punjab. These rules were designed to ensure effective policing while providing a measure of accountability. Rule 24.4, in particular, deals with situations where the police may have reason to suspect that a cognizable offence has not been committed based on the information or intelligence received. Given its significance, let's take a closer look at this rule.

Rule 24.4: Text and Summary

Here's the verbatim text of Rule 24.4 from the Punjab Police Rules, 1934:

"(1) If the information or other intelligence relating to the alleged commission of a cognizable offence is such that an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect that an alleged offence has not been committed, he shall enter the substance in the station diary and shall record his reasons for suspecting that the alleged offence has not been committed and shall also notify to the informant, if any, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.

(2) If the Inspector or other superior officer, on receipt of a copy of the station diary, is of the opinion that the case should be investigated, he shall pass an order to that effect, and shall, in any case, send the diary or an extract thereof to the District Magistrate for his perusal and orders."

To summarise, Rule 24.4 allows a police officer to choose not to register an FIR (First Information Report) or to investigate if they have doubts about the validity of the information provided. This rule mandates that the officer must document the reasons for their suspicion and inform the person who reported the alleged offence about the decision. However, a superior officer, such as an Inspector, has the authority to overrule this decision and order an investigation, which then requires notification to the District Magistrate for further guidance.

Challenges and Concerns with Rule 24.4

While Rule 24.4 offers a clear process for handling doubtful cases, it can be subject to potential abuse. Police officers might misuse this rule to avoid registering FIRs for various reasons, such as corruption, pressure from influential individuals, or simple negligence. Despite the Supreme Court's judgement in the Lalita Kumari case, which clarified that the registration of FIRs is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed, getting FIRs registered remains a challenge in many instances.

The Lalita Kumari case emphasised that an FIR must be registered for cognizable offences and that preliminary inquiry should not delay this process. Yet, there are still reports of police reluctance to register FIRs, with Rule 24.4 sometimes serving as a shield for avoiding investigations or suppressing complaints.

Conclusion

As we reflect on Rule 24.4 and its implications, it's clear that while it has practical uses, it also has the potential for misuse. To address these concerns, law enforcement agencies must ensure transparency and accountability in their operations. Regular training and strict supervision can help reduce the risk of abuse, and clear channels for public complaints can ensure that citizens have recourse if they believe their reports are being ignored or mishandled. Ultimately, the key lies in a balanced approach that respects the intent of Rule 24.4 while upholding the principles of justice and fair treatment for all.