High Court Raps Punjab Police For 15 Yrs Delay In Filing Cancellation Report In Criminal Case, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Punjab Police for an "inordinate and unjustified" 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report in a criminal case. Expressing serious concern over the lackadaisical approach of the investigating agency, the court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Punjab Government.

The FIR under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC was registered in the year 2007 but the cancellation report was prepared in the year 2007-2009 but the same has not been presented till the intervention of the High Court by way of the present petition 

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The non-application of mind or a lack of diligence in this context effectively amounts to an abdication of a statutory and constitutional duty. Such inaction 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 plea was filed seeking direction in a criminal intimidation case lodged in 2007 and the parties entered into compromise in same year and the cancellation report was also prepared but not filed till date.

The Court said that, Pertinently, 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.

"A failure to discharge this solemn duty promptly can undermine the faith of citizenry in the efficacy and fairness of the justice," it added.

The bench added that while it is indubitable, that the legislature in its considered wisdom, has intentionally abstained from prescribing a mandatory time limit for the presentation of challan/final report –– thus allowing the investigating agency a measure of discretion –– this discretion is neither absolute nor unbridled.

"The grant of discretion carries a corresponding imperative for reasoned and diligent exercise. It must be grounded in reasonableness and directed towards the ends of justice. When such discretion is permitted to translate within an unjustifiable and inordinate delay, such as the protracted period of 15 years, as in the instant case, it constitutes an antithesis to the rule of law," the Court further said.

Justice Goel highlighted that, the non-application of mind or a lack of diligence in this context effectively amounts to an abdication of a statutory and constitutional duty.

"Such inaction 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 bench said.

In the present case, the Court perusing the affidavit filed by the DGP, Punjab, noted that it "does reflect that the punitive action(s) has been initiated against the concerned delinquent official(s) & corrective measures have been reflected to be undertaken by way of issuance of circular No.30 of 2025 dated 15.09.2025."

Further, the final report qua the FIR in question has been presented before the concerned Court and the same has been accepted by the said Court on 22.08.2025 i.e. after filing of the petition in hand, it added.

Concerning the slumber on part of the investigating agency, this Court finds itself compelled, to deprecate the protracted official torpor and its discernible unwillingness to discharge its solemn responsibilities in a timely and conscientious manner, the Court said, "The case in hand is an unsoothing illustration of lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach. Such a lethargic conduct can be curbed only if the Courts, across the system, adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment."

Hence, it imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh and said, "The imposition of costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct."

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Katter, Advocate for Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit K. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

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

Citation:: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 387

Click here to read order