Representative image

NEW DELHI: Why is Delhi Police still using Persian and Urdu words while registering FIR, Delhi high court sought to know on Wednesday.

It asked Delhi Police commissioner to explain why "high sounding and bombastic" words in these languages are still in use when it becomes difficult for a common person to understand.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar pointed out that FIR should ideally be in the words of the complainant who has come with a grievance and too much flowery language, the meaning of which has to be discerned from a dictionary, ought not to be used.

"Too much flowery language should not be used. FIR should be in the words of the complainant. Police is there for public at large and not just for persons with doctorate degree in Urdu or Persian. Simple language should be used, instead of high sounding words. People have to know what is written. It is applicable to use of English also. Don't use bombastic language," the bench remarked, while seeking the stand of the police chief on the matter.

It directed the police commissioner to file an affidavit explaining why Urdu or Persian words are still in use when complainants approaching the cops mostly use simple language to narrate their ordeal. The court listed the matter for November 25.

Delhi high court was hearing a PIL, by advocate Vishalakshi Goel, seeking directions to Delhi Police not to use Urdu and Persian words in FIRs, arguing that it becomes difficult for a normal citizen to understand or follow what the police have done with their complaint in case of a crime having occurred.

Delhi government additional standing counsel Naushad Ahmed Khan, appearing for the police, said that Urdu and Persian words used in FIRs can be understood by making a little effort. He also said that the words are used when transferring the FIR to higher authorities.

In a separate PIL raising similar concerns, Delhi Police had, a few years ago, defended the usage of words such as zaabta (law), majroob (injured), imroz (today), etc, arguing that due to long and continuous usage in police documents, the public has become familiar with these.

