The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a 15-year-old theft case, ruling that an individual cannot be “condemned forever” by an inactive First Information Report (FIR) when official records are lost and the statutory time limit for prosecution has expired.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla delivered the order on July 13 during a hearing for a plea seeking to set aside the long-pending FIR. The court observed that continuing the FIR is impermissible since the lack of records means the case can never reach a logical conclusion.
Passport Rejection Exposes Inactive Case
The legal issue surfaced after the petitioner applied for a passport and received a negative police verification report on January 1, 2024, which cited the pending FIR. The petitioner stated that he had never received any notice, summons, or communication from either the police or the court regarding the theft case since its initial registration.
Investigation Reveals Untraceable Files
Following the passport rejection, the petitioner approached the Nahan Police Station in the Sirmaur district. The station house officer informed him that the case file had been sent to the trial court on January 4, 2010.
However, the trial court found the records to be untraceable and directed the police to supply any available documentation, which the police failed to do. According to a report from the sessions trial court, its office held only the FIR and bail records, with no formal chargesheet available.
Statutory Time Limits Expired
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Rajesh Kumar argued that the three-year legal window for taking official action on a theft charge had long expired. Because no proceedings had been initiated within that timeframe, he argued that maintaining the active FIR served only to harm his client.
Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria, representing the state, opposed quashing the case. He argued that the police had forwarded the chargesheet to the court—despite lacking a physical receipt—and noted that the stolen property had been recovered.
High Court Nullifies Proceedings
The High Court rejected the state’s assertions, noting that neither the court nor the police possessed any record confirming the chargesheet was submitted. Justice Kainthla ruled that because the three-year limit for legal action had elapsed, the trial court could not legally initiate any proceedings.
The court subsequently set aside the FIR and invalidated all arising legal proceedings. To resolve the matter, the high court allowed the petitioner to present a copy of the judgment downloaded from the court’s website to the relevant departments, instructing authorities to verify the order online rather than insisting on an official physical copy.
