The Punjab and Haryana High Court has censured the Punjab Police for an unexplained 15-year delay in filing a cancellation report, terming it a “lethargic conduct” that undermines the rule of law. The Court ordered the State to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000 for its prolonged inaction. Out of this, Rs.25,000 has been directed to be paid to the petitioner and Rs.75,000 to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority–Disaster Relief Fund.
The case arose from an FIR registered under Section 323, Section 341, Section 506, and Section 34 of the India Penal Code (IPC). The dispute was later compromised between the parties, and a cancellation report was prepared as early as 2007–2009. However, the report was inexplicably not presented before the court for nearly 15 years, despite repeated representations by the petitioner. It was only after the filing of the present petition that the cancellation report was eventually submitted and accepted by the competent court in August 2025.
Justice Sumeet Goel stressed that prosecutorial discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits, while observing, “The authority to initiate and pursue prosecution is an inherent and inalienable element of the sovereign power of the State. This power is not a mere privilege but a solemn public trust, which must be exercised with utmost diligence and transparency, so as to uphold the foundational principes of the rules of law. A failure to discharge this solemn duty promptly can undermine the faith of citizenry in the efficacy and fairness of the justice system.”
The Court further remarked that when discretion translates into “an unjustifiable and inordinate delay, such as the protracted period of 15 years, as in the instant case, it constitutes an antithesis to the rule of law.” Quoting Lord Halsbury, the Court recalled, “Discretion means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour.”
The Court held that non-application of mind in this context amounted to “an abdication of a statutory and constitutional duty” and converted procedural flexibility into arbitrariness. While holding the case as an “unsoothing illustration of lack of due diligence,” the Court directed that costs of Rs.1,00,000 be imposed on the State, recoverable from the salaries of delinquent officials if necessary.
Justice Goel observed, “Such a lethargic conduct can be curbed only if the Courts, across the system, adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition of costs is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out such unscrupulous conduct.”
Additionally, the Court recorded the issuance of Circular, prescribing protocols for the timely submission and monitoring of cancellation and untraced reports. Justice Goel directed that this circular be “scrupulously adhered to and implemented in its true letter and spirit,” warning that any laxity may invite punitive consequences.
The Director General of Police, Punjab, has been directed to file a compliance affidavit within 90 days.
Case Title: Kimti Lal @ Kimti Lal Bhagat Vs. State of Punjab and others
Case No: CRM-M-43052-2025
Coram: Justice Sumeet Goel
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. Ashwani Kumar Katter, L.M. Gulati
Advocate for Respondent: AAG Amit K. Goyal
Picture Source :
