The court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking presentation of an investigation report. Finding the report had already been filed, the court declared the petition infructuous but highlighted the 22-month delay in the investigation.
Petition disposed of as infructuous; liberty to plead before the Illaqa Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12172 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-12172 of 2012 Date of decision : May 16, 2013
Sharanjit Kaur
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Kushgar Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for respondents no. 1 to 3
None for respondent no. 4
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Sharanjit Kaur has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for directing official respondents no. 1 to 3 to present final investigation report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 169 dated 21.7.2011, under section 325 IPC, Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, Annexure P/2.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12172 of 2012
-2-
On the preceding date of hearing, following order was passed:-
“Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sukhdev Singh stated that cancellation report in the case has been prepared on 14.12.2012 but the same has not yet been approved by the competent authority and has, therefore, not been presented in Court. Grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is that investigation report in the case was not being presented by the Police authorities in the Court. The petitioner sought expeditious presentation of the investigation report in the Court. This petition itself is pending for more than 11 months. The grievance of the petitioner stands justified and substantiated by the conduct of the official respondents. It is not explained why they took almost 17 months in preparing cancellation report in a simple case under Section 325 IPC. There is also no explanation why even the said cancellation report has not been approved having been prepared more than three months ago. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police/Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police shall appear in person on the next date of hearing with relevant record. Meanwhile official respondents shall explain the aforesaid delay by filing affidavit of Deputy Commissioner of Police/Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12172 of 2012
-3-
Adjourned to 16.05.2013.”
Pursuant thereto, affidavit dated 9.5.2013 of Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-II Ludhiana (ADCP) has been placed on record and he is also present in person. However, there is practically no explanation in the affidavit for the long delay of 22 months in concluding investigation in a simple case under section 325 IPC. It was only when personal appearance of senior police officer of the rank of DCP/ADCP was ordered that the cancellation report in the case is said to have been presented on 20.4.2013 in the court of Illaqa Magistrate i.e. almost one year after filing of this petition and after appearance on behalf of the State 10 months ago.
Monthly Monitoring meetings are held in the Districts to monitor delay in investigation of the cases. However, cases are coming up very frequently wherein there has been abnormally long delay in investigation of the case for which there is practically no explanation as in the instant case. It would depict that no fruitful purpose is being served by the Monitoring meetings. The instant case may be taken up as case study (may not be for punishing the defaulting officials) for making Monitoring meetings fruitful to avoid such unnecessary long delay in investigation of the cases forcing either party to approach this Court resulting in avoidable litigation.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12172 of 2012
-4-
Since cancellation report in the case has already been presented, the instant petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to raise her pleas available in accordance with law before the Illaqa Magistrate.
Copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police, Punjab
for appropriate action.
( L.N. Mittal ) May 16, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking presentation of the investigation report is infruguous after the report has been presented.
Whether officials should be directed to explain the delay in investigation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sharanjit Kaur
State of Punjab
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
