Magistrate becomes functus officio after accepting final reports and cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings against police officials.

The petitioners, a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and an Additional DCP, challenged four orders passed by the ACJM-02, Patiala House Courts.

The proceedings originated from three FIRs filed under Section 303(2) of the BNS, 2023.

Following investigations, the police filed "Untrace Reports" and a "Cancellation Report".

On 15.11.2025, the ACJM accepted these reports and noted the complainants' satisfaction, effectively closing the cases.

However, citing a one-year delay by the Investigating Officer (IO) in filing these reports, the ACJM initiated a collateral inquiry into the conduct of the "erring official," directing the DCP to file status reports on departmental action and summoning the Addl. DCP to appear personally due to "evasive" replies.

The court primarily applied Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which dictates the courses of action available to a Magistrate upon receipt of a final report.

It relied on *Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra*, establishing that a Magistrate may only: (i) accept the report, (ii) reject it and take cognizance, or (iii) direct further investigation.

The court also invoked Rule 13(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, and the Delhi Police Act, 1978, which vest disciplinary control solely within the police administration.

Furthermore, it applied "Personal appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings Rules, 2025" (Notification No.119/Rules/DHC) and the Supreme Court’s dicta in *State of U.P. v. Assn. of Retd. Supreme Court and High Court Judges*, which prohibit the routine summoning of government officials.

The High Court reasoned that once the ACJM recorded the complainants' "No Objection" and accepted the Untrace/Cancellation reports, the judicial proceedings stood "closed" for all purposes, rendering the Magistrate *functus officio*.

While the ACJM’s intent to address administrative delays was noted as a "good cause," the court held that a Magistrate is not a fact-finding authority for departmental lapses.

The High Court observed that the ACJM overstepped his jurisdiction by venturing into administrative/disciplinary functions that fall under the exclusive discretion of the Police Department under the Delhi Police Act and Rules.

Additionally, summoning the Addl. DCP for "evasive replies" was found to be contrary to the 2025 Rules, which mandate that physical presence should not be directed simply because an official's stance differs from the court’s view.

The court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to monitor the fate of internal police proceedings once the main criminal matter was disposed of.

However, it clarified that the Police Department remains free to initiate or continue internal actions against the IO in accordance with the Delhi Police Act and Rules.