Expressing serious concern over what it described as a “very strange” practice prevailing in Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday observed that police authorities were routinely delaying registration of FIRs in cognizable offences by keeping matters pending in the name of preliminary inquiries for “years together” until litigants approached courts.
The observations by the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu came during the hearing of a petition filed in public interest, where the court was examining the delay in registration of FIRs and carrying out inquiries.
“We have come across various cases where a person goes to the police station and says that a cognizable offence has been committed. The police, instead of lodging an FIR, indulge in a preliminary inquiry for years together,” the Bench observed in open court.
Calling the situation “something very strange here in Punjab”, the court added that complaints were often kept pending for “years together, months together”, and FIRs were ultimately registered only after litigants moved the High Court “under the pressure of the case”.
The Bench made it clear that such a practice ran contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of “Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh”. The reference is significant as the mandate of the Constitution Bench leaves no scope for administrative discretion once information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is received.
The ruling makes it clear that registration of FIR is mandatory at the threshold stage, and any deviation from this settled principle—except in narrowly carved out exceptional categories—undermines the very object of criminal law enforcement. The courts have since been of the opinion that prolonged preliminary inquiries, stretched over months or even years, not only defeat statutory obligations but also dilute accountability within the policing system, effectively allowing delay to substitute due process.
Referring specifically to the ruling, Chief Justice Nagu observed that preliminary inquiries were permissible only in “very rare cases” and even then could continue only for a maximum of 15 days. “And it says that in very rare cases the preliminary inquiry is to be conducted, and that too only for 15 days. Nothing more than that,” the Bench observed.
Before parting with the matter, the Bench made it clear to Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha that the larger issue of prolonged preliminary inquiries required immediate administrative correction. “You need to revise all these things. You need to issue fresh directions,” the Bench told the Chief Secretary.
Responding to the court’s concern, Sinha assured the Bench that he would immediately convene a meeting with the State Director-General of Police and issue fresh instructions from the Home Department side to ensure compliance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.
“Definitely, definitely. I will hold a meeting with DGP, and immediately I will issue the instruction from the Home Department side,” Sinha told the Bench.
The observations assume significance as the High Court indicated that criminal law could not be kept in suspended animation indefinitely through prolonged departmental or preliminary inquiries once information regarding a cognizable offence was available.
