Punjab & Haryana High Court Fines Punjab Police RS 1 Lakh For 15-Year Delay In Cancellation Report [Read Order]

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has severely criticized the Punjab Police for an “inordinate and unjustified” 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report in a criminal case, imposing costs of Rs 1 lakh on the state government while condemning what it termed “lackadaisical” and “stolid conduct” by investigating officials.

Justice Sumeet Goel delivered the judgment on September 22, 2025, in a petition filed by a man who had been suffering the agony of pending criminal proceedings since 2007, despite the matter being compromised between the parties and a cancellation report being prepared by police in 2007–2009 but never submitted to court.

The case involved an FIR registered in August 2007 under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. The petitioner alleged that the dispute was resolved through the intervention of family elders and respectable persons of the locality, with the complainant even submitting an affidavit to the police station regarding the compromise.

Despite the matter being settled and a cancellation report being prepared by police in 2007–2009, the report was never presented before the competent court, leaving the accused to suffer under the shadow of pending criminal proceedings for nearly two decades.

“The concerned police officials displayed a lackadaisical, even stolid conduct while dealing with the FIR in question.” The court noted that such delay “constitutes an antithesis to the rule of law.”

The court further emphasized the fundamental duty of prosecution agencies: “The authority to initiate and pursue prosecution is an inherent and inalienable element of the sovereign power of the State. This power is not a mere privilege but a solemn public trust, which must be exercised with utmost diligence and transparency, so as to uphold the foundational principles of the rule of law.”

Justice Goel also noted that while the legislature intentionally abstained from prescribing mandatory time limits for filing final reports, giving investigating agencies discretion, “this discretion is neither absolute nor unbridled.” The court quoted Lord Halsbury’s definition of discretion: “something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour.”

The court found that the protracted delay “effectively amounts to an abdication of a statutory and constitutional duty” and converts “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.”

The Punjab government, through Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav, filed a detailed affidavit acknowledging the lapse and explaining that the original investigating officers had retired more than four years ago, making departmental action legally impermissible due to limitation periods under Punjab Civil Services Rules.

However, the DGP issued a show cause notice to Parminder Singh (PPS), the then Deputy SP who was still in service and currently posted as DCP Law and Order in Ludhiana. The police also issued Circular No. 30 of 2025 on September 15, 2025, establishing comprehensive guidelines for timely submission and follow-up of cancellation and untraced reports.

The circular mandated that all Commissioners of Police and Senior Superintendents of Police personally prioritize disposal of pending cancellation reports, ensure proper coordination between police stations and courts, and implement set procedures for tracking case files to prevent such lapses.

Justice Goel acknowledged that corrective measures had been taken but emphasized the need for institutional deterrence: “Such lethargic conduct can be curbed only if the Courts, across the system, adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition of costs is a necessary instrument that must be deployed to weed out such unscrupulous conduct.”

The court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh, directing Rs 25,000 to be paid to the petitioner and Rs 75,000 to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority Disaster Relief Fund. The state was given 15 days to deposit the amount and permitted to recover it from the salary of delinquent officials.

The judgment came after the police finally submitted the long-pending final report to the concerned court on August 22, 2025, following the filing of the petition. While noting that the grievance had been effectively redressed, Justice Goel emphasized that costs were necessary to prevent future occurrences of such negligence.

The court directed the DGP Punjab to file a compliance affidavit within 90 days, warning that failure to do so may invite punitive consequences for concerned officers. Justice Goel also emphasized that the newly issued circular “cannot be permitted to remain a trifling formality or a mere paper directive but must be effectuated in a manner that ensures its intended purpose is achieved in substance as well as form.”

Case Title: Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat vs. State of Punjab and others

[Read Order]