Question Description
Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The passage suggests that registration of FIR is necessary in cases of -a)All offencesb)Offences which are cognizable as per opinion of the policec)Offences which are cognizable as per lawd)All non-cognizable offencesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.