Justice Delayed: High Court Penalizes State for 18-Year "Official Torpor" in FIR Closure

In a stinging rebuke to the administrative apathy within law enforcement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 on the State of Punjab. The move comes after a petitioner was forced to endure 18 years of legal uncertainty due to police negligence in a case where a cancellation report had been prepared—but never filed—since 2007.

A Legacy of Negligence

The case began in 2007 when an FIR was registered against Kimti Lal under Sections 323 , 341, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Despite the parties reaching a compromise and the police allegedly preparing a cancellation report as early as 2009, the file vanished into a bureaucratic void. For nearly two decades, the petitioner remained under the shadow of a criminal case, with his representations to the police authorities yielding nothing but silence.

It was only after the petitioner approached the High Court in 2025 that the machinery of justice finally ground into motion. By August 2025, the cancellation report—long-lost in the archives of indifference—was finally presented and accepted by the trial court.

The State’s Admission and Corrective Measures

In response to the Court’s inquiry, the Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab, filed an affidavit admitting to the lapse. The report cited significant gaps in record-keeping and the inability to hold retired officers accountable due to statutory limitations.

To address endemic systemic failures, the DGP issued Circular No. 30 of 2025, which mandates: * Personal oversight: District heads (CPs/SSPs) must personally review pending cancellation reports. * Accountability: Nodal officers are now tasked with tracking the movement of case files to prevent loss. * Institutional Monitoring: Periodic meetings with District Magistrates and District Attorneys are required to track investigative progress.

The Court’s Verdict

Presiding over the matter, Sumeet Goel, J. , expressed deep dissatisfaction with the "lackadaisical" conduct of the investigation agency. The Court emphasized that while the law allows investigative agencies discretion, this power cannot be used as a shield for inaction.

“The non-application of mind or a lack of diligence in this context effectively amounts to an abdication of a statutory and constitutional duty,” the Court observed. Finding that the state’s inaction had eroded the citizenry's faith in the justice system, the Bench ordered the State to pay ₹1,00,000 in costs, to be split between the petitioner and the Punjab State Legal Services Authority’s Disaster Relief Fund.

Key Observations

Highlighting the gravity of the institutional failure, the Court remarked:

• "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 ... this discretion is neither absolute nor unbridled."
• "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."
• "The imposition of costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct."

Implications for Future Cases

The ruling serves as a stern warning to law enforcement agencies across the state. By mandating a "set procedure" for the movement of files and threatening punitive consequences for future negligence, the High Court has signaled that "official torpor" will no longer be tolerated. For the petitioner, the nightmare of an 18-year-old FIR has finally ended, but for the Punjab Police, the work of systemic reform under the new circular has just begun.

The Court has directed the DGP, Punjab to file a compliance affidavit within 90 days, ensuring that Circular 30 of 2025 remains a "living directive" rather than a mere paper formality.