The State has a duty to act diligently in filing cancellation reports to uphold the rule of law; excessive delays undermine public trust.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The petition in hand, has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 with the following substantive prayer:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to present cancellation report or the status report in case FIR No.281 (Annexure P-1) dated 09.08.2007, under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.6 Jalandhar, District Jalandhar as the matter has already been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.6 and even the investigation Agency prepared cancellation report way in the year 2007 itself, but was not presented before the Court till date and the petitioner is suffering the agony of the present case since last about 18 years, in the interest of justice.”

2. The factual milieu of the petition in hand reflects that an FIR was registered against the petitioner (herein), at the instance of the respondent No.6, under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar. Later on, the misunderstanding between the rival private parties is stated to have been resolved with the intervention of the elders of the family/respectable persons of the locality and respondent No.6 (herein) -FIR complainant had submitted an affidavit in this regard to the concerned police station. It has been pleaded in the petition that a cancellation report was prepared by the Police in the year 2009 but the same has not yet been presented before the concerned Court. Aggrieved with the non-culmination of the investigation qua the FIR in question and presentation of the final report, the present petition has been preferred before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, iterating the cause pleaded in the petition, has argued that the FIR in question was registered in the year 2007 and a cancellation therein was prepared by the Police in the year 2007/2009 itself but the same had not been filed before the competent Court despite a hiatus of about 15 years. Learned counsel has argued that though there is no fixed and mandatory time frame for the Police to file a final report, yet the same ought to have been done within a reasonable time. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has made various representation(s) to the concerned Police authorities, including to the Commissioner of Police of Jalandhar, but to no avail. Thus, grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Upon being called upon by this Court, State of Punjab has filed reply dated 15.09.2025 by way of an affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Yadav, IPS, Director General of Police, Punjab, relevant whereof reads as under:

“13. That the matter has been examined by the deponent in view of facts reported by Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar and substantive rules/procedure goveming the matter. The period of more than 4 years have lapsed since the retirement of MHC HC Kamaljit Singh No. 1195/Jal and Inspector Sakattar Singh No. 823/JR, the then SHO of Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. It is legally impermissible to initiate departmental action against them in view of limitation prescribed by Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II.

14. That however, Parminder Singh, PPS the then Dy.SP, City -2 Jalandhar is now posted as DCP, Law and Order, Ludhiana. In view of report received from Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar Show Cause Notice has been issued vide No. 10000/CR/LA-5 dated 15.09.2025 to Parminder Singh, PPS the then Dy. SP, City 2, Jalandhar, presently posted as DCP, Law and Order, Ludhiana for lapses mentioned in the report of Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar