Punjab & Haryana HC Raps Top Cop Over Delay In Deciding Plea Of Runaway Couple Seeking Protection, Flags SOP Requiring Decision In 3 Days

The Punjab & Haryana High Court condemned the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) for delaying in deciding the representation filed to the Police by a run-away couple.

Taking note of the delay of 5 days in the deciding the representation and non-compliance of the SOP issued by the Department of Home Affairs, under the directions of the High Court in Kajal v. State of Haryana, the Court said that the reason for the delay need to be investigated and addressed to ensure such error do not occur.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) himself is responsible for the delay and should not make a clerk the scapegoat as the SSP being head of the District of Law Enforcing Agency was fully aware of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued.”

The judge further said that, “This is why the SOP clearly stated that once a representation is received in his office it must be addressed and decided within three days. however, the representation was not placed before him for five days, indicating that the SSP did not effectively communicate the urgency of the matter to his staff, despite the routine nature of the process. This oversight deserves to be condemned.”

Adding that Court is not taking action against the Officer because the SOP was recently introduced and adopting the mechanism may take time, the Court said, "the forces like the one involved in the case, which are expected to act swiftly and effectively, should not suppress such matters."

"With this in mind, the Court offers a word of advice and will dispose of this petition, trusting that good sense will prevail among the officer involved," the Court said.

These observations were made while hearing plea of a runaway couple seeking protection as they were apprehending threat from their relatives.

During the hearing, the Court noted that there was a delay of 5 days in deciding the representation.

The representation was received on March 20 and on March 25 the reference was made to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Phagwara who further marked it for further action in compliance with the SOP.

"The same was finally examined and the inquiry got concluded and the matter was disposed of on 26.03.2025 but the copy placed on record of the said inquiry so conducted at...do not bear the date of its completion neither it bears any endorsement number or any other marking to show that it is made part of the police record," added the Court.

Perusing the affidavit submitted by the SSP, the Court noted that that a show cause notice was issued to Clerk Mukesh Kumar on March 26, for performing his duty negligently and to explain as to why the departmental inquiry should not be initiated against him for keeping the representation of the petitioners pending at his table which was received in the Central Diary Branch, District Kapurthala on March 25 and.

Justice Moudgil opined that the SSP himself is responsible for the delay and should not make a clerk the scapegoat as the SSP being head of the District of Law Enforcing Agency was fully aware of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued. 

In the light of the above, the Court advised the Secretary of Department of Home Affairs, Government of Punjab to issue a circular to the Police Headquarters through the SSP/SP/Commissionerate to take note of the fact that such delay should not occur.

While disposing of the plea it added that the "time frame legislated in the SOP shall be adhered to strictly as the matter is not such simplicitor of deciding and hearing the representation but to ensure that no human life is taken casually and is protected."

Mr. Nitin Mitto, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.

Title: XXX v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order