Pulling up the UT Police over a three-year delay in completing an investigation, a local court has directed the deputy inspector general (DIG) to examine the practice of sending final investigation reports to senior police officers for approval before filing them before the court.
The court was informed by the investigating officer (IO), ASI Jitender Singh, that the investigation had been completed and the final report prepared. However, it was sent to senior police officers for consideration and approval, following which it was referred to the deputy district attorney (Legal) for an opinion. The legal branch raised certain objections, following which the complainant was asked to submit additional documents. The complainant disputed the police’s claim that he had failed to provide the documents, submitting that he had already responded to the notice and supplied all documents available with him. He maintained that the originals were in the possession of the accused. The court further noted that the investigating officer had failed to place on record any administrative instructions issued by the UT Police mandating such approval from the superintendent of police. It observed that the practice appeared to have been adopted by the investigating agency without any legal or administrative backing.
Judicial magistrate first class Kuldeep Singh, while hearing a petition filed by complainant Kali Charan seeking monitoring of the investigation in a 2023 FIR registered at Manimajra police station, observed that the practice of seeking approval from superior officers had no apparent legal basis and was causing unnecessary delays in investigations. The investigating officer subsequently acknowledged receiving 109 pages of documents from the complainant in court. Taking note of the delay, the magistrate observed that there was no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requiring the officer in-charge of a police station to obtain approval from a superior police officer before forwarding the final report to the court.
The IO, station house officer and Economic Offences Wing were directed to consider the documents submitted by the complainant and file the final report by the next date of hearing, as the investigation had already been completed.
Describing the matter as serious, the court directed the DIG, Chandigarh, to examine the practice and submit a report. The DIG was also directed to ensure the timely and fair completion of the investigation in the present case.
