Chandigarh municipal court denied a cancellation report that was filed about a well-known embezzlement case involving an astonishing Rs 3 crore, providing a setback to the Chandigarh Police. A group of people running a private limited company were accused of defrauding a complainant by enticing him into a business partnership with promises of enormous profits in the 2015 case.
The complainant’s notice of the cancellation report was one of the major procedural violations in the police inquiry that the court determined. Legal requirements state that the police must notify the complaint of the investigation’s findings and get their approval. In this instance, the court noted that the police had not shown enough proof of informing the complaint, including the lack of a tracking record for the alleged notification that the complainant had received.
The court also voiced its displeasure with the excessively long wait in submitting the cancellation report, which was submitted nine years after the original complaint. The court underlined that these delays might damage public trust in the judicial system and undercut the fundamentals of justice.
In a harsh ruling, the court sent the investigating officer the cancellation report back and instructed them to provide the complaint with a formal notice in line with the law. The court’s judgment emphasizes how crucial it is to follow due process and make sure that each party in a case is handled equally.
For additional action, the matter has now been returned to the investigative agency. Before choosing to close the case, the police will need to carry out a more comprehensive investigation and give the complainant a chance to reply to the cancellation report.
This event brings to light how crucial transparency and accountability are in the criminal justice system. It reminds the police authorities about their obligation to observe the rules that have been set out, as well as to be fair and just with all those involved.
The lawyers and the rest of society are monitoring this case because it brings up important questions about the way we deal with fraud of large amounts and whether or not criminal justice protects the rights of injured parties.
