Registrar Can Use Single Member's Complaint As 'Source Information' For Suo-Moto Enquiry But Must Apply Independent Mind: Bombay High Court Non-Recovery Of Ticket Not Conclusive Of Being 'Ticketless Traveler'; Benefit Of Doubt In Untoward Incidents Favours Claimants: Calcutta High Court Bank Responsible For Facilitating Insurance Under Master Policy; Failure To Inform Borrower Of Rejection Constitutes Deficiency In Service: Chhattisgarh High Court Father’s Right To Interim Custody Abroad Cannot Be Denied On Speculative 'Flight Risk' Fears If Passports Are With Mother: Delhi High Court Absence Of Bodily Injuries No Ground To Disbelieve Victim In Sexual Assault Cases; Testimony Of 'Sterling' Child Witness Sufficient For Conviction: Gauhati High Court Successive Bail In Economic Offences Not A Matter Of Course; Requires Substantial Change In Circumstances: Himachal Pradesh High Court Nephews Occupying Property By Permission Are Mere Licensees, Cannot Claim Title Without Proof Of Joint Family Funds: Delhi High Court Permanent Intention To End Cohabitation Necessary For 'Desertion'; Mere Physical Separation Not Enough: Jharkhand High Court Assault During Sudden Provocation Without Premeditated Intent To Kill Not Attempt To Murder: Karnataka High Court Converts Conviction To S.325 IPC Memorandum Recording Past Oral Family Settlement Doesn't Require Registration, Can Be Used To Prove Partition: Delhi High Court Habitual Offenders Not Entitled To Suspension Of Sentence If There Is Apprehension Of Non-Availability For Other Pending Trials: Madras High Court Aadhar Cards Not Cogent Evidence To Prove Lawful Occupation Of Public Premises, Procedural Protection Under 1971 Act Not Available: Calcutta High Court GST Payment During Search via DRC-03 Cannot Be Automatically Presumed Voluntary; Retention Without Adhering To CBIC Safeguards Is Unlawful: Rajasthan HC University Cannot Backtrack From Order Extending Make-Up Exam Facility To UG Students: Orissa High Court Mere Participation In Mutual Fight Not Evidence Of Common Intention To Kill: Patna High Court Acquits Two Of Murder Conviction Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Assessing Income In Motor Accident Claims; Says Average Of 3 Years' ITR For Self-Employed & Last Year's ITR For Salaried Magistrate Not Required To Record Pre-Charge Evidence For Offences Exclusively Triable By Sessions Court: Supreme Court

Judiciary as Guardian of the Constitution Must Address Failures in Law Enforcement: P&H High Court Demands Action Plan on 79,000 FIRs Pending Beyond Statutory Period

22 January 2025 6:17 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed severe displeasure over the pendency of a staggering 79,000 First Information Reports (FIRs) in Punjab where investigations have exceeded the statutory period prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). Justice Sandeep Moudgil, in a detailed order, called for immediate action and accountability from the state authorities, including the Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab.

The Court was hearing CRM-47174-2024, an application seeking the revival of the main petition (CRM-M-37149-2021) concerning an investigation delay in FIR No. 36 of 2021, registered under Sections 307, 379-B, 34 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur.

Three Years of Delay in Investigation Sparks Court's Ire

The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to one of the accused, alleging that the investigation remained incomplete after 3½ years despite repeated court orders. The investigation pertained to a case involving gunfire attacks and attempted murder.

The Court observed that despite its previous order on September 17, 2024, requiring the completion of the investigation within one month, the police failed to act in a timely manner. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ferozepur, Mrs. Saumya Mishra, appeared in Court but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Court Slams State for "Deliberate and Intentional Disregard" of Orders

Justice Moudgil termed the delay a "deliberate and intentional disregard to judicial dignity" and criticized the police for their laxity in fulfilling assurances given to the Court. The affidavit filed by the SSP revealed no tangible efforts to apprehend the accused or utilize modern investigative tools like tracking mobile locations or monitoring financial transactions.

Even more striking was the State's submission that the investigation had been rushed to file a chargesheet on December 9, 2024, just days after the hearing notice for the instant application was issued. Despite this, one of the accused, Bansi Lal, remains at large, and the affidavit failed to detail substantive steps taken to trace him.

A Broader Systemic Concern: 79,000 FIRs Pending Investigation

In addition to this specific case, the Court highlighted the alarming backlog of FIRs across Punjab. A district-wise report submitted by DGP Gaurav Yadav revealed over 79,000 FIRs pending investigation despite the expiry of the statutory 90-day period for filing a final report.

Justice Moudgil noted: "The judiciary serves as a guardian of the Constitution and must address failures in law enforcement, particularly when such failures affect the public's faith in the legal system."

The Court observed that the lack of timely investigations and filings reflects poorly on the efficiency of law enforcement and undermines public trust in the administration of justice.

Judicial Directive: Action Plan Required to Address Investigation Backlog

The High Court directed the DGP, Punjab, to submit a comprehensive Action Plan within two weeks to address the backlog of pending investigations. The Action Plan must include:

Details of FIRs: Dates of FIR registration, statutory time limits for investigation, and the elapsed period.

 

Proposed Deadlines: A timeline for completing investigations and filing chargesheets in the pending cases.

District-Wise Breakdown: Statistical data from all districts to ensure transparency.

The Court emphasized that "accountability and transparency are integral to enhancing public trust in law enforcement."

The Court also addressed concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the accused Bansi Lal, who remains absconding. It questioned the quality of the investigation and the effectiveness of efforts to locate the accused, noting that "standard excuses of conducting raids are insufficient without using scientific methods."

Justice Moudgil reiterated that "effective investigation is the backbone of justice delivery, and any laxity compromises not just individual cases but the entire legal system."

The matter has been adjourned to January 30, 2025, for further consideration. The State has been instructed to ensure a more detailed affidavit addressing the specific delays in this case and a broader systemic response to the investigation backlog.

The Court's call for transparency and accountability underscores its commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring timely justice for citizens.

Next Hearing: January 30, 2025

Latest Legal News