Listen To This Post
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Police to refrain from registering FIRs against young individuals solely based on secret information or the disclosure statements of co-accused, particularly in cases involving alleged recovery of weapons.
The directions were issued by Justice Sanjay Vashisth, who took note of an affidavit filed by Assistant Inspector General of Police (Investigation-Litigation) Vikas Sabharwal, along with a circular dated April 3 issued by the Bureau of Investigation, Punjab.
Referring to the circular, the court observed that it clearly emphasised that individuals of “tender age” should not be named as accused solely based on disclosure statements made by co-accused without independent corroborative evidence.
Going further, the court placed a responsibility on the state machinery to ensure strict compliance with due process. It asserted that investigating officers must not directly register FIRs against youths aged 18 to 20 years based merely on unverified secret inputs, especially in cases where offences are alleged after recovery of weapons.
“Proper verification and adherence to procedure must precede registration of such FIRs,” the court said, stressing the need for greater sensitivity and accountability in investigations involving young persons.
During the hearing, the state counsel assured the court that due care would be exercised in future and that investigating officers would comply with the guidelines laid down by the court.
Before concluding the proceedings, the bench directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Punjab, for implementation.
The order gains significance as it seeks to curb the practice of implicating young individuals at the initial stage of criminal proceedings without substantive material, particularly in arms-related cases where recoveries are often cited as the primary basis for invoking penal provisions.
The court also drew a sharp parallel with colonial-era policing practices, cautioning against arbitrary implication of citizens. It observed that such methods, reminiscent of British-era policing, are incompatible with constitutional principles and personal liberty in a democratic setup governed by the rule of law.
The observations come nearly three months after the court asked the DGP to examine instances in which serious criminal cases were registered solely based on unverified secret information, without proper checks or verification, especially against youths.
