Allahabad HC Flags 50,000 Pending Final Reports in Lucknow Alone, Orders State-Wide Data from District Judges
Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari directed all District and Sessions Judges across Uttar Pradesh to submit reports on the backlog of unacted police final reports pending before criminal courts.
A routine application seeking expeditious disposal of a single final report before a Lucknow court drew a much wider response from the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench on 21 July 2026. Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari, sitting singly, took note of what he described as a systemic failure: approximately 50,000 final reports pending for disposal in the Lucknow Judgeship alone, with similar arrears reported across all districts in Uttar Pradesh. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to issue state-wide directions and called for a detailed report from every District and Sessions Judge in the State.
The Application Before the Lucknow Bench
The applicants, Asit Verma and another, are businessmen who required passport renewal to travel abroad for business. Their passports were affected by a criminal case arising from Case Crime No. 611 of 2019 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.
In that case, the police had submitted a final report on 11 July 2020 in favour of the applicants. The matter was registered as Case No. 4917 of 2023 (Maya Gupta v Saumil and Another). Despite notice being issued to the complainant, the court concerned had not passed any order on the final report for years. The uncertainty around the pending proceedings was directly impeding the renewal of the applicants' passports.
The applicants had previously approached the High Court in Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. 87 of 2026 (Asit Verma v State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another). That application resulted in an order dated 10 February 2026 directing the court concerned to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within one week. Despite that direction, no order had been passed, prompting the present application.
Sri Shreet Raj Jaiswal, assisted by Sri Akash Verma, appeared for the applicants. The learned Additional Government Advocate appeared for the State.
The Court's Concern: Systemic Indifference by Presiding Officers
Justice Tiwari did not confine his analysis to the immediate grievance. He observed that final reports submitted before district-level courts are being kept pending for long periods across Uttar Pradesh. The Lucknow Judgeship alone carried approximately 50,000 such cases.
The Court pointed to a specific procedural gap: once a final report is filed, notice must be issued to the complainant or informant. While delay in service of notice can occur, the Court found the prolonged inaction thereafter to be “not understandable because ultimate sufferer is the accused.” The accused persons, in whose favour final reports are filed, bear the cost of the court's inaction — whether in terms of travel restrictions, passport renewals, or continued legal uncertainty.
Justice Tiwari held Presiding Officers directly responsible once a final report reaches their court. He noted that contested cases may require time, but final reports, filed after completion of investigation, should not languish for years. The order characterised prolonged pendency as the result of indifference on the part of Presiding Officers rather than any inherent complexity in the proceedings.
No Statutory Time Frame, But Inordinate Delay Impermissible
The Court acknowledged that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prescribes a specific time limit for disposing of final reports before criminal courts. That gap in the statute, however, was not treated as a licence for indefinite delay.
Justice Tiwari held that inordinate and prolonged pendency of final reports “adversely affects the administration of criminal justice and unnecessarily prolongs the uncertainty of the parties concerned.” This framing placed the problem squarely within the Court's supervisory mandate under Section 483 Cr.P.C. and Section 529 B.N.S.S., which vest supervisory authority over subordinate criminal courts in the High Court.
State-Wide Directions to District and Sessions Judges
Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court directed all District and Sessions Judges in Uttar Pradesh, through the Registrar General or Senior Registrar of the High Court, to ensure that courts under their administrative control periodically review the pendency of final reports. Priority is to be accorded to cases that have remained pending for a considerable period, particularly where notices to the informant or complainant have already been issued.
District and Sessions Judges were also directed to impress upon Chief Judicial Magistrates and other Magistrates to make earnest endeavours for expeditious disposal of such matters, with the aim of substantially reducing existing backlog.
Beyond directions, the Court required each District and Sessions Judge across the State to submit a report addressing four specific points:
- How many final reports are pending court-wise in the district.
- The reason for no order having been passed on the pending final reports.
- Action taken by the District and Sessions Judge regarding disposal of pending final reports in criminal cases.
- Any action plan or proposed plan prepared or adopted for disposal of pending final reports.
These reports are to be compiled and placed before the Court through the Registrar General or Senior Registrar.
Outcome
The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 20 August 2026, at which point the compiled reports from District and Sessions Judges across the State are to be placed before it. The immediate application concerning the applicants' final report in Case No. 4917 of 2023 remains pending, with the broader systemic inquiry now running alongside it.