Magistrate becomes functus officio after accepting police reports and cannot initiate departmental inquiries against officials.

The petitioners (DCP and Addl. DCP) challenged four orders passed by the ACJM-02, Patiala House Courts.

The ACJM had accepted Untrace and Cancellation Reports filed by the Police under Section 193 of the BNSS regarding three FIRs alleging theft under Section 303(2) of the BNS.

Despite accepting the reports and recording the complainants' satisfaction, the ACJM observed a one-year delay in filing these reports after they were forwarded by the ACP.

Consequently, the ACJM issued directions to the DCP to take action against the "erring official," sought updates on departmental inquiries, and eventually summoned the Addl. DCP to appear personally due to "evasive" replies regarding the fate of the disciplinary proceedings.

Whether a Magistrate has the jurisdiction to supervise or direct departmental disciplinary proceedings against police officials after accepting a final report (Untrace/Cancellation Report).

Whether the personal appearance of high-ranking government officials was directed in accordance with established legal procedures and notifications.

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

It relied on Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that a Magistrate may either accept the report, reject it and take cognizance, or direct further investigation.

The court also applied Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh and Rule 13(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, regarding the independence of departmental proceedings.

Furthermore, it cited Notification No.119/Rules/DHC (2025) and State of U.P. v. Assn. of Retd. Supreme Court and High Court Judges, which restrict the routine summoning of government officials.

The High Court reasoned that once the ACJM accepted the Untrace/Cancellation reports, the proceedings were "closed" for all legal purposes, and the Magistrate became functus officio.

By continuing to monitor the internal disciplinary actions against the Investigating Officer, the ACJM overstepped his judicial jurisdiction and entered the realm of administrative functions.

The court noted that the ACJM is not a "fact-finding authority" for police administrative lapses.

Regarding the summoning of the Addl. DCP, the court found the direction contrary to the 'Personal appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings Rules, 2025,' which mandates that physical presence should not be directed routinely and that video conferencing should be the primary option.

The court emphasized that while the Magistrate's intent to address delays was for a "good cause," the method—interfering with the sole discretion of disciplinary authorities—was legally impermissible.

The Court held that a Magistrate cannot maintain oversight of departmental inquiries after the judicial proceedings have concluded.

However, the Court clarified that the Police Department remains free to initiate or continue any legal action against the concerned Investigating Officer under the Delhi Police Act or Rules.