Punjab and Haryana High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to issue directions to the respondents to present cancellation report in FIR under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) as the matter had already been compromised between the parties in 2007. A Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that this case illustrated lack of due diligence and reflected apathetic approach which could only be curbed if the Courts, across the system, adopted an institutional approach which penalized such comportment.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition by imposing a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on Punjab for a delay of 15 years in presenting the final report.
Background
In the present case, an FIR was registered in 2007 against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the IPC. Later, the misunderstanding between the parties was resolved with the intervention of the elders of the family. The complainant of the FIR had submitted an affidavit in this respect to the police station concerned. Accordingly, a cancellation report was prepared by the Police in 2007/2009 but the same was not yet presented before the Court concerned despite a gap of about 15 years.
The petitioner contended that though there was no fixed and mandatory time frame for the Police to file a final report, the same ought to have been done within a reasonable time. Hea, further, stated that he made various representations to the Police authorities concerned, including Commissioner of Police of Jalandhar, but it was to no avail. Thus, the petitioner reached this Court.
The respondent stated that the Director General of Police, Punjab (‘DGP’) had issued a circular in September 2025 for preparation, submissions and follow up of cancellation, untraced report to the competent Court. Further, it iterated that the issuance of the said circular reflected that requisite corrective measures had been taken to ensure that such lapses do not recur in future.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that to initiate and pursue prosecution was an inherent and inalienable element of the sovereign power of the State and such power was not a mere privilege but a solemn public trust, which should be exercised with utmost diligence and transparency, so as to uphold the foundational principles of the rule of law. Further, the Court specified that failure to discharge this solemn duty promptly could undermine the faith of citizenry in the efficacy and fairness of the justice. While it was indubitable that the legislature in its considered wisdom, had intentionally abstained from prescribing a mandatory time limit for the presentation of final report allowing the investigating agency a measure of discretion, however, this discretion was neither absolute nor uncontrolled.
The Court emphasized that the grant of discretion carried a corresponding imperative for reasoned and diligent exercise, and it should be grounded in reasonableness and directed towards the ends of justice. The Court opined that when such discretion was permitted to translate within an unjustifiable and inordinate delay, such as the protracted period of 15 years as in the present case, constituted an antithesis to the rule of law.
The Court specified that the non-application of mind or lack of diligence in this context effectively amounted to abdication of a statutory and constitutional duty and such inaction converted a necessary element of procedural flexibility into an instrument of arbitrariness, defeating the very purpose of timely justice and eroding the procedural safeguards guaranteed to both the accused and the victim.
Considering the facts of the present case, the Court held that it appeared to be careless and not just apathetic conduct that was undertaken by the Police officials concerned while dealing with the FIR in question. The affidavit filed by the DGP, Punjab did reflect that the punitive actions were initiated against the delinquent official(s) concerned and corrective measures were reflected to be undertaken by way of issuance of the said circular. Further, the final report for the FIR in question had been presented before the Court concerned and the same was accepted by the said Court which was after filing of the present petition.
The Court observed that in discharging its sovereign constituent of prosecution, the State and its instrumentalities should act with dispatch and diligence. Further, the Court emphasized that it was due to the slumber on part of the investigating agency that it found itself compelled, to deprecate the protracted official’s inaction and its discernible unwillingness to discharge its solemn responsibilities in a timely and conscientious manner.
The Court opined that the present case was not a soothing illustration of lack of due diligence, which demonstrated an apathetic approach. Further, the Court stated that such lethargic conduct could be curbed only if the Courts, across the system, adopted an institutional approach which penalized such comportment. The Court opined that the imposition of costs was a necessary instrument, which had to be deployed to weed out such unscrupulous conduct. Thus, the Court deemed it appropriate to saddle the State with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable and real time in nature.
Further, the Court observed that since the final report was filed by the Police for the FIR in question and was accepted by the Court concerned, the grievance raised in the present petition was effectively redressed and thus, no further orders were called for in this regard.
Thus, the Court saddled the State of Punjab with costs of Rs 1,00,000 out of which Rs 25,000 would be paid to the petitioner and Rs 75,000 would be paid to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority-Disaster Relief Fund. Further the Court ordered that the State should deposit the aforesaid costs within 15 days and should be at liberty to recover the same from the salary of the delinquent officials, in accordance with law. The Court stated that it hoped and expected that the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent officials should be concluded expeditiously.
The Court further expected that the circular issued by the DGP, Punjab, should be scrupulously adhered to and implemented in its true letter and spirit as the said circular could not be permitted to remain a trivial formality or a mere paper directive but should be effectuated in a manner that ensured its intended purpose was achieved in substance as well as form.
Further, the Court directed the DGP, Punjab to file a compliance-affidavit with the Registrar General of this Court within 90 days and failure would invite punitive consequences for officer(s) concerned. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
[Kimti Lal v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 43052 of 2025, decided on 22-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ashwani Kumar Katter, Advocate, L.M. Gulati, Advocate
For the Respondent: Amit K. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
