MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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