Ideally, police stations in a democracy operating under the rule of law should be safe havens where citizens can easily and openly report grievances and seek protection. However, the reality often differs significantly, with many individuals, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized, encountering resistance from police officers when attempting to file complaints at the police stations.

This raises the critical question of why some police officers are reluctant to receive complaints, a phenomenon this article will explore by examining the systemic, legal, operational, psychological, and social factors that contribute to this behaviour.

The Strain of Excessive Demands: Human Resources in Conflict with Expectations:

A key systemic factor contributing to the issue is the persistent workload disparity prevalent in numerous police forces, especially in developing nations such as India. Law enforcement personnel frequently face an excessive array of duties, including routine patrols, proactive crime prevention, administrative tasks, upholding public order, providing escort services, festivals related duties, political and communal problems, crime against women, traffic control duties, overseeing VIP protection, and engaging with the local community.

Furthermore, the process of receiving and addressing new complaints places a significant strain on resources. Even seemingly trivial grievances necessitate thorough record-keeping, initial investigations, interdepartmental communication, and often subsequent interventions. In police stations with insufficient staffing, particularly in rural or semi-urban areas, officers may, consciously or unconsciously, try to discourage or dismiss cases considered lengthy or "insignificant." This becomes a strategy for lessening their burden, although it compromises the quality of public service.

Legal Dichotomy: Cognizable vs. Non-Cognizable Offences:

The Indian Criminal Justice System distinguishes between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. In cognizable cases (such as murder, rape, theft, etc.), police officers are obligated to register a First Information Report (FIR) and initiate investigation without prior judicial approval. Conversely, non-cognizable offences (like defamation, public nuisance, or simple assault) require the complainant to obtain permission from a magistrate before police action.

In many cases, complainants are unaware of this distinction, and officers - either due to lack of communication skills, indifference, or lack of patience - simply direct them away, giving the impression that the complaint is being refused. While the refusal may technically be within the law, the lack of proper explanation contributes to citizen dissatisfaction.

Jurisdictional Confusion and the Underuse of 'Zero FIR':

One of the most cited reasons for refusing to register a complaint is territorial jurisdiction. Officers often claim that since the incident did not occur within their station's limits, they are not authorized to record the complaint. While this may once have been a barrier, the legal provision of a Zero FIR - introduced to eliminate jurisdictional delays - enables any police station to register an FIR and then transfer it to the appropriate station.

Despite this provision, many officers either do not implement it effectively or are unaware of it. This often leads to a frustrating ping-pong game for complainants, who are sent from one station to another without any relief. Women in cases of sexual assault and victims of domestic violence are disproportionately affected by such practices.

Jurisdictional ambiguities between district and railway police in India often exacerbate delays in case investigations and hinder timely relief for victims or their families. These disputes typically arise due to the overlapping geographical areas of responsibility, particularly concerning crimes committed within railway premises or inside the district police jurisdiction. The lack of clear demarcation regarding whose authority prevails in specific scenarios leads to confusion and a reluctance to immediately take charge of a case.

This results in precious time being lost as both police forces engage in debates over jurisdiction, potentially delaying crucial initial steps like evidence collection, witness interviews, and medical assistance for victims. Consequently, the investigation gets off to a slow start, and the already traumatized victims and their relatives face further agony due to the bureaucratic hurdles and the lack of swift action.

Statistical Pressures: The 'Crime Index' Paradox:

There exists an inherent paradox in how police performance is evaluated. Many senior officers and departments take pride in showcasing reduced crime statistics - a lower number of FIRs often being equated with better law and order. This flawed interpretation of crime data incentivizes officers to underreport or avoid registering cases, particularly those that may reflect poorly on the department's image or could remain unresolved for long periods.

Such underreporting distorts reality, erodes public trust, and ultimately hampers crime prevention and justice delivery. It sends a message that the system is more interested in preserving appearances than upholding the law.

It is conceivable that some State Crime Record Bureaus (SCRBs) might present an artificially improved picture of the crime situation by manipulating data and underreporting the actual number of reported criminal cases. This could stem from various pressures, including the desire to showcase better law and order statistics, potentially influencing policy decisions and public perception. By not accurately reflecting the true volume of reported crimes, these manipulations could lead to a distorted understanding of the prevailing safety and security landscape within the state.

This underreporting could involve categorizing serious offenses as less severe ones, not registering certain types of complaints altogether, or employing statistical methodologies that minimize the reported figures. Such practices undermine the integrity of crime data, hindering effective crime prevention strategies, resource allocation, and ultimately, the ability of law enforcement agencies to address the real needs of the community.

Social Bias and Discretionary Power:

Despite training and oversight, subjective biases still permeate police work. Officers, being human, may let their personal judgments influence their professional duties. Complaints by individuals from marginalized communities, lower castes, religious minorities, or the poor are sometimes not taken seriously. Moreover, in inter-caste disputes or domestic violence cases, officers might label the issue as "family matter" or "trivial," and discourage formal complaints.

In urban areas, informal pressure from local political figures, businessmen, or even senior police personnel can also affect whether a complaint is entertained or dismissed. Discretion that is meant to ensure efficient functioning is at times misused to deny access to justice.

Lack of Accountability and Institutional Culture:

A fundamental issue is the absence of strong accountability mechanisms for refusal to file complaints. While the law does require officers to register FIRs in cognizable matters and imposes penalties for deliberate non-compliance (under Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), enforcement remains weak.

Most complainants are unaware of their rights or are too intimidated to challenge the officer's refusal. The complaint redressal mechanisms—such as approaching senior police officers, police complaints authorities, or filing a writ petition—are cumbersome and out of reach for the average citizen. This fosters a culture where non-registration becomes normalized.

Fear of Political and Legal Fallout:

In politically charged or high-profile situations, the act of formally registering a complaint can become a precarious undertaking for police officers, potentially triggering a cascade of undesirable consequences. The fear of attracting intense media scrutiny, navigating complex legal proceedings, or facing repercussions from powerful individuals or entities can create a strong disincentive to document such grievances.

Consequently, officers might actively discourage complainants from filing formal reports or attempt to downplay the seriousness of the allegations by pushing for informal resolutions or mediations. This reluctance stems from a perceived need to avoid the potential turmoil and pressure associated with sensitive cases, even if it means compromising the proper legal process and potentially denying justice to the aggrieved parties.

Corruption and Conflict of Interest:

At times, the refusal to register a complaint may be directly linked to corrupt practices. If the alleged offender is connected to the police or has paid bribes, officers may seek to suppress the complaint to protect vested interests. Similarly, in property disputes or civil matters with criminal overtones, where stakes are high, police might play a partisan role.
 

No Receipt Given:

The failure of some police officers to provide complainants with a formal receipt upon receiving their grievance is a significant lapse in protocol and a potential source of further injustice. This seemingly minor omission can have far-reaching consequences, leaving the complainant without tangible proof that their issue was officially lodged with the authorities.

Without a receipt, individuals may struggle to track the progress of their case, hold the police accountable for timely action, or even prove that they ever reported the incident in the first place. This lack of documentation can breed distrust and suspicion, particularly among vulnerable populations who may already be hesitant to engage with law enforcement.

The absence of a receipt also creates opportunities for complaints to be mishandled, delayed, or even deliberately ignored without any record. This undermines transparency and erodes the fundamental right of citizens to have their grievances formally acknowledged and addressed by the police. Issuing a receipt is not merely a bureaucratic formality; it is a crucial step in ensuring accountability, fostering trust, and upholding the principles of a fair and just legal system.
 

Consequences of Refusal: Erosion of Justice and Trust:

• Victims are denied access to justice, leading to trauma, frustration, and a sense of helplessness.
• Perpetrators feel emboldened, knowing they can escape legal scrutiny.
• Citizens lose faith in the police, which can spiral into general lawlessness and vigilante behaviour.
• Communities, particularly vulnerable ones, become alienated, feeling that the state is not on their side.
• Democratic institutions weaken, as the police - tasked with enforcing the law - are seen as obstructing it.

• Way Forward: Building a Responsive and Accountable Police Force:
  1. Legal Reforms and Stronger Enforcement:
     • Implementation of Section 199 BNS to penalize officers who deliberately fail to register complaints must be monitored and enforced.
     • Public awareness of legal provisions such as Zero FIR, Right to File an FIR, and available redress mechanisms should be enhanced.
  2. Administrative Measures: Ensuring adequate police staffing levels, significantly reducing the burden of non-core administrative and logistical duties, and implementing more efficient resource allocation - encompassing personnel, vehicles, fuel, and technology like laptops with internet connectivity - are fundamental prerequisites for improving police responsiveness and their capacity to effectively serve the public. By addressing these operational deficiencies, law enforcement agencies can free up valuable time and resources, allowing officers to focus on core policing functions, including the diligent registration and investigation of complaints, ultimately leading to a more accessible and effective justice system.
     • Performance metrics for police officers must shift from low crime numbers to resolution rates, community satisfaction, and responsiveness.
     • Linking police performance to crime statistics often discourages officers from registering complaints to maintain low crime figures.
     • This undermines public trust and access to justice. Shifting evaluations toward qualitative factors like responsiveness, fairness, and resolution effectiveness can reduce this reluctance, encouraging complaint registration and strengthening transparency and accountability in policing.
  3. Capacity Building and Training:
     • Police personnel need regular training in citizen rights, gender sensitivity, handling vulnerable populations, and legal compliance.
     • Emphasis should be placed on treating complainants with dignity and empathy.
        
  4. Independent Oversight: Establishing or strengthening independent police complaints authorities at the state and district levels can provide a forum for addressing grievances against police conduct.
      
  5. Use of Technology:
     • Online FIR filing systems and helplines reduce face-to-face gatekeeping.
     • CCTV in police stations, digital recording of complaint interactions, and feedback mechanisms can increase transparency.

Conclusion:
The act of police officers declining to register complaints goes beyond a simple procedural issue; it signifies fundamental systemic problems within law enforcement, where resource limitations, inaccurate legal interpretations, shortage of manpower, vehicles and fuel, lethargy, insincerity, entrenched institutional practices, and societal/caste/political/religious biases combine to obstruct access to justice from the outset. This denial at the initial point of contact undermines the very foundation of a just legal system.

To achieve true equality under the law, a nation must eradicate these practices through sustained political commitment, active public oversight, comprehensive bureaucratic reforms, and, crucially, a profound cultural shift within the police force. This transformation should redefine the police role not as controllers of justice but as its primary and readily available protectors. Ultimately, only through such comprehensive change can police stations genuinely embody the protection and justice that citizens in a democratic society rightfully expect and deserve.

Reference:

• The True Crime File, Kim Daly.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565