The Delhi High Court has clarified a critical boundary in criminal procedure: once a magistrate accepts a police untrace or cancellation report under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, their judicial role in that matter terminates. This judgment prevents courts from venturing into administrative oversight of police conduct after concluding criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Three separate FIRs were registered at e-Police Station, Vasant Kunj, under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging serious offences. After investigation, the police filed Untrace Reports in two cases and a Cancellation Report in the third, concluding no cognizable offence was made out. The complainants filed affidavits expressing no objection to these reports.
Procedural History
- 15.11.2024: First Untrace Report filed by police; accepted by ACJM on 15.11.2025
- 29.10.2024: Cancellation Report filed in second FIR
- 04.11.2024: Second Untrace Report filed
- 15.11.2025: ACJM accepted all reports, noting complainant’s no-objection
- 26.11.2025: ACJM directed DCP to respond to delay in filing reports
- 10.12.2025: ACJM issued notice to Additional DCP for non-compliance
- 05.01.2026: ACJM summoned Additional DCP personally, calling her reply "evasive"
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of all orders passed after 15.11.2025, arguing the ACJM had no jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings or summon officials after accepting the police reports.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits a magistrate to continue exercising judicial authority and issue administrative directives to police officials after accepting an Untrace or Cancellation Report.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that once the ACJM accepted the Untrace/Cancellation Reports under Section 193 BNSS, following the precedent in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, the proceedings stood concluded. The magistrate became functus officio and could not thereafter initiate inquiries into police conduct, summon government officials, or direct departmental action. Reliance was placed on Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh and State of U.P. v. Assn. of Retd. Judges to assert that judicial interference in departmental proceedings violates separation of powers and natural justice.
For the Respondent
The State supported the petitioners’ stance, contending that the ACJM overstepped into administrative domains governed by the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The State cited A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Kumar Sain v. NCT of Delhi to argue that adverse remarks against officials without opportunity of hearing violate principles of natural justice. The personal summoning of officials contravened the Delhi High Court’s own 2025 Notification on government official appearances.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of proceedings under Section 193 BNSS, which provides three alternatives to a magistrate upon receipt of a police report: accept, reject, or direct further investigation. The Court held that acceptance of the report under this provision is a final judicial determination. Once accepted, the matter is closed for all purposes.
"As evident from the first impugned order dated 15.11.2025, the learned ACJM had duly accepted the Untrace/Cancellation Report(s) filed by the Police under Section 193 BNSS, as per which no cognizable offence(s) were made out... Thus, since the learned ACJM clearly accepted each of the Untrace/Cancellation Report(s)... the proceedings in each case before the learned ACJM stood 'closed' for all purposes."
The Court emphasized that the magistrate is not a fact-finding body empowered to conduct de novo inquiries into police delays or lapses. Such matters fall exclusively within the domain of police disciplinary authorities under the Delhi Police Act and Rules. The Court rejected the notion that good intentions justify procedural overreach, noting that even well-motivated judicial directives cannot usurp administrative jurisdiction.
The Court further held that summoning government officials for personal appearance, particularly without compliance with the 2025 Notification requiring video-conferencing as the default and recording of reasons, was procedurally invalid and constitutionally unsound.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Delhi High Court held that once a magistrate accepts an Untrace or Cancellation Report under Section 193 BNSS, they become functus officio and lose all jurisdiction to issue administrative directions or summon police officials. The impugned orders directing departmental action and personal appearances were set aside.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Acceptance of Police Reports Is Final
- Practitioners must treat acceptance of an Untrace/Cancellation Report under Section 193 BNSS as a conclusive judicial determination
- Any subsequent court order directing police action, inquiry, or summoning of officials is ultra vires
- Applications seeking continuation of proceedings after acceptance must be resisted on grounds of functus officio
Departmental Proceedings Are Beyond Judicial Reach
- Courts cannot substitute themselves for police disciplinary authorities under the Delhi Police Act
- Remarks against officials in judicial orders without opportunity of hearing violate natural justice
- Police may independently initiate departmental proceedings, but courts must not initiate or pressure them
Personal Appearance of Officials Requires Strict Compliance
- The 2025 Delhi HC Notification mandates video-conferencing as the first option for government officials
- Physical appearance requires recorded reasons and cannot be ordered routinely
- Failure to comply renders summonses invalid and subject to quashing
