Delay In Filing Cancellation Report

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sumeet Goel  pulled up Punjab Police for a 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report in a 2007 criminal case, terming it "inordinate and unjustified." The Court imposed a Rs. 1 lakh cost on the Punjab Government, stressing that such inaction undermines the rule of law and erodes public faith in justice. 

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and Others(2025).

What was the Background of Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat v. State of Punjab and others (2025) Case? 

• Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat filed CRM-M-43052-2025 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which was decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel on 22 September 2025. 
• FIR No. 281 dated 09 August 2007 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The misunderstanding between the rival private parties was resolved in 2007 itself through the intervention of family elders and respectable persons of the locality, and the FIR complainant submitted an affidavit regarding this compromise to the concerned police station. 
• The investigating agency prepared a cancellation report in the year 2007/2009 following the compromise between the parties, acknowledging that the criminal dispute had been amicably settled. 
• Despite the preparation of the cancellation report in 2007/2009, the same was not presented before the competent court for approximately 18 years, causing prolonged legal uncertainty and harassment to the petitioner. 
• The petitioner made various representations to concerned police authorities, including the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, seeking presentation of the cancellation report, but received no positive response or action from the concerned officials. 
• The State of Punjab, through the Director General of Police, acknowledged the lapse and filed a reply stating that key investigating officers had retired more than 4 years prior, legal impediments existed for departmental action against retired officials, and a show cause notice was issued to the then supervising officer. 
• The DGP Punjab issued Circular No. 30 of 2025 dated 15 September 2025 implementing corrective measures to ensure timely submission and follow-up of cancellation reports, proper tracking of case files, and coordination between police stations and courts to prevent similar instances in future. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the authority to initiate and pursue prosecution constitutes an inherent and inalienable element of the sovereign power of the State, emphasising that this power is not a mere privilege but a solemn public trust which must be exercised with utmost diligence and transparency to uphold the foundational principles of the rule of law. 
• Justice Sumeet Goelnoted that whilst the legislature has intentionally abstained from prescribing a mandatory time limit for presentation of final reports, thereby allowing investigating agencies a measure of discretion, such discretion is neither absolute nor unbridled and carries a corresponding imperative for reasoned and diligent exercise grounded in reasonableness and directed towards the ends of justice. 
• The Court invoked Lord Halsbury's established principle 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, being neither arbitrary, vague nor fanciful, but legal and regular, exercised within limits to which an honest man competent to discharge his office ought to confine himself. 
•  The Court held that when prosecutorial discretion translates into unjustifiable and inordinate delay spanning 15 years, it constitutes an antithesis to the rule of law, with non-application of mind or lack of diligence effectively amounting to an abdication of statutory and constitutional duty, converting procedural flexibility into an instrument of arbitrariness. 
• Justice Sumeet Goel characterised the case as an unsoothing illustration of lack of due diligence reflective of an apathetic approach, finding the conduct of concerned police officials to be lackadaisical and stolid, compelling the Court to deprecate the protracted official torpor and discernible unwillingness to discharge solemn responsibilities in a timely and conscientious manner. 
• The Court observed that such lethargic conduct can be curbed only if Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalises such comportment, identifying the imposition of costs as a necessary instrument to weed out unscrupulous conduct and ensure that State officials discharge their duties with requisite diligence. 
• The Court noted that the Director General of Police, Punjab had initiated punitive action against concerned delinquent officials and implemented corrective measures through Circular No. 30 of 2025, whilst emphasising that such circulars must be scrupulously adhered to and implemented in true letter and spirit rather than remaining trifling formalities or mere paper directives. 
• Justice Sumeet Goel concluded that in discharging its sovereign constituent of prosecution, the State and its instrumentalities must act with dispatch and diligence, ensuring that procedural safeguards do not become instruments of delay and injustice, particularly when administrative inaction spans nearly two decades and undermines public faith in the efficacy and fairness of the criminal justice system. 

What is Section 193 of BNSS, 2023? 

• Report of police officer on completion of investigation: 
  • Sub-section (1): Investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay Sub-section (3)(i): Officer shall forward report to Magistrate as soon as investigation completed. 
• Delay in Filing Cancellation Report: 
  • Section 193(1) BNSS, 2023 mandates investigation completion "without unnecessary delay" creating statutory duty for timely report submission. 
  • Section 193(3)(i) BNSS, 2023 requires "as soon as investigation completed" forwarding to Magistrate, prohibiting administrative delays. 
  • 15-year delay in filing cancellation report violates Section 193 BNSS, 2023's core mandate of expeditious case disposal. 
  • Such protracted delay nullifies Section 193 BNSS, 2023's legislative intent of preventing indefinite case pendency. 
  • Non-filing for 15 years despite report preparation breaches Section 193 BNSS, 2023's constitutional duty framework. 
  • Administrative inaction converts Section 193 BNSS, 2023's procedural safeguards into instruments of legal harassment. 
  • Judicial intervention enforces Section 193 BNSS, 2023 compliance highlighting systemic police administration failures. 
  • Cost imposition reflects judicial determination to prevent future Section 193 BNSS, 2023 timeline violations.