The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Ferozepur Senior Superintendent of Police to hold an inquiry into the unexplained delay of more than six-and-a-half years in the investigation of a 2019 accident case and fix responsibility of the officials found at fault. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal asserted that the conduct of the investigating officer(s) was “callous, indicative of dereliction of duty”.“The court cannot help expressing concern regarding the manner in which investigation of the case has been conducted and final report prepared. There is no explanation, much less, a satisfactory one as to why the investigation has been delayed. No reasons have been recorded in the final report explaining the delay in presentation thereof,” Justice Nagpal asserted.The Bench then asked the Senior Superintendent of Police to conduct the enquiry in the matter and “fix responsibility of the erring official(s), who would be proceeded against departmentally”. The directions came as Justice Nagpal allowed a petition for quashing an FIR registered on June 4, 2019, at Talwandi Bhai police station in Ferozepur for causing death by negligence and other offences under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC. Directions were also sought for quashing the subsequent proceedings, final report and the trial court’s May 12, 2026 order. The relief was granted “qua the petitioner”.The Bench was told that the accident occurred in 2019, but the investigating officer prepared final investigation report only on December 19, 2025. It was submitted before Ferozepur Judicial Magistrate First Class on March 10 this year after a delay of more than six-and-a-half years.The accused was subsequently charge-sheeted under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. He approached the trial court seeking dropping of the criminal proceedings and discharge on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that the limitation provisions applied only at the stage when the court took cognizance and that cognizance had already been taken.Appearing before Justice Nagpal’s Bench, the State submitted that cognizance could be taken after expiry of limitation if the delay was properly explained or it was necessary to do so in the interests of justice. The State also contended that the court had condoned the delay by taking cognizance.After hearing rival contentions, the Bench asserted: “The challan having been presented after a period of more than six-and-a-half years, well beyond the period of limitation of three years, the Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offences, when no extension of period of limitation under Section 473 CrPC was made.”Justice Nagpal added: “Since, the final report was filed by the police after a lapse of six-and-a-half years, without explaining why, how and in what manner the delay occurred and without seeking extension of period of limitation under Section 473 CrPC, cognisance of the offence by trial Court was barred”.