Suit For Declaration Involves All Co-Owners; Limitation Plea Cannot Be Decided At Interlocutory Stage Of Impleadment: Telangana High Court Mere Proof Of Proper Dispatch Sufficient: Bombay High Court Says Trade Marks Registrar Need Not Prove Actual Delivery Of Renewal Notice Casteist Remarks Inside Private Office Without Independent Witnesses Do Not Attract SC/ST Act: Delhi High Court Private Property Transfer Not Void Under Section 64 CPC If Made Before 'Effective' Execution Of Attachment Warrant: Karnataka High Court Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Is Not Substantive Evidence, Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction When Victim Turns Hostile: Madras High Court Murder Simpliciter Is Not A Motor Accident; Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act Requires Causal Link Between Death And Vehicle: Supreme Court Mere Involvement Of Car In Chain Of Circumstances Leading To Death Doesn't Attract Motor Vehicles Act: Supreme Court Proclaimed Absconder Cannot Seek Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 528 BNSS: Allahabad High Court Magistrate Cannot Mechanically Discharge Accused Without Recording Reasons Under Section 239 CrPC: Calcutta High Court Trial Courts Must Strictly Follow Mandate Of Section 43D(5) UAPA To Record Prima Facie Finding Before Granting Bail: Delhi High Court Executive Cannot Impose Additional Eligibility Criteria For Statutory Appointments Beyond What Is Prescribed In Parent Act: Karnataka High Court Major Married & Earning Sons Entitled To Compensation For Father’s Death; Dependency Evaluated At Time Of Filing Claim: Gujarat High Court Remaining Extent Of Bequeathed Property After Prior Conveyances Can Be Partitioned Among Legal Heirs: Kerala High Court Exchanging Garlands Not A Recognized Mode Of Marriage; Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suspends License

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