15-Year Delay in Filing Cancellation Report Is Not Procedural Lapse but Institutional Arbitrariness: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“This power is not a mere privilege but a solemn public trust, which must be exercised with utmost diligence and transparency” – High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh delivered a sharp rebuke to the State authorities for an inexcusable and prolonged delay of nearly eighteen years in submitting a cancellation report to the Court, despite the case being compromised as early as 2007. Terming the conduct of the police machinery as “lackadaisical” and “stolid,” the Court held that such delays constitute an abdication of sovereign and constitutional responsibilities by the State and its instrumentalities.

“The Failure to File a Cancellation Report for 15 Years Defeats Rule of Law and Erodes Public Confidence in the Justice System”

The case concerned an FIR registered on 09.08.2007 under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, based on a private dispute between Kimti Lal and Respondent No. 6. The matter had been amicably resolved with the intervention of elders and respectable members of the locality. A cancellation report was prepared by the police in 2007 or 2009 itself. However, it was never presented before the Court.

The petitioner remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for nearly two decades due to the police’s failure to formally submit the report. The delay continued despite the petitioner making numerous representations before the Police Commissioner and other authorities. It was only after the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that the matter was revived before the judiciary.

The Court noted with anguish that “while the legislature has in its considered wisdom refrained from prescribing a mandatory time limit for the presentation of a challan or final report, the discretion so conferred upon the investigating agency is not to be mistaken as unbridled license to delay justice.”

Justice Sumeet Goel observed, “Such discretion must be exercised in accordance with reason, law, and the foundational principles of justice—not arbitrariness or institutional lethargy. A delay of fifteen years in presenting a cancellation report does not fall within the contours of procedural liberty—it amounts to eroding the procedural safeguards guaranteed to both accused and victims.”

“Discretion in Investigation Is Not a Licence to Sleep Over Files – It Must Be Legal and Regular, Not Arbitrary and Fanciful”

Referring to an old but apt dictum of Lord Halsbury, the Court reminded the State that “discretion” means something to be done “according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.”

The Court severely criticised the police for turning discretion into negligence and flexibility into an excuse for non-performance. It held that the failure to submit the final report amounted to a “conversion of procedural flexibility into an instrument of arbitrariness, defeating the very purpose of timely justice.”

It further lamented that such behaviour reflected an “apathetic approach” by the authorities and underscored that this conduct could only be remedied if Courts “adopt an institutional approach which penalises such comportment.”

“When the State Sleeps, the Courts Must Wake It Up with Real-Time Consequences”: High Court Imposes Costs and Orders Disciplinary Action

The Court was not content with mere declaratory rebukes. In a concrete and accountability-driven approach, the High Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the State of Punjab, observing that “such lethargic conduct can only be curbed if the Courts deploy the instrument of costs to weed out unscrupulous inaction.”

Out of this amount, ₹25,000 was ordered to be paid to the petitioner, and ₹75,000 to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Disaster Relief Fund. The State was granted liberty to recover this amount from the salaries of the delinquent officials.

The Court directed that departmental proceedings against the erring officers be concluded in the right earnest. It also took note of Circular No. 30 of 2025, issued by the DGP, Punjab, which laid down detailed procedural safeguards and timelines for handling cancellation and untraced reports in criminal cases. The Court ordered that the circular “shall be scrupulously adhered to and implemented in its true letter and spirit—not as a trifling formality or paper directive, but in substance and form.”

Additionally, the Court required the Director General of Police, Punjab to file a compliance affidavit within 90 days, affirming the implementation of all measures. Failure to do so, it warned, “may invite punitive consequences, as per law.”

Accountability for Delay Is Not a Matter of Grace but a Constitutional Imperative

The judgment in Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab is a significant affirmation of judicial intolerance towards bureaucratic inertia in criminal investigations. It makes clear that when a sovereign function like prosecution is exercised with indifference, it is not merely a procedural lapse but a serious breach of public trust and constitutional accountability.

By declaring that “prosecution must be undertaken with dispatch and diligence,” and penalising the State for its apathy, the High Court has reiterated that rule of law must not be held hostage to missing files, forgotten duties, or indifferent officers.

Date of Decision: 22.09.2025