Procedural issues between courts and the police

Should the sanctity of set procedures undergo a measure of depreciation especially when it is the question between lower courts and the police personnel, though being not much technical in nature, but pending amendments and necessary changes in the system in entirety, the conventions and practices should continue. Otherwise also any letter complaint, sensitive information addressed to a particular institution in ordinary course is deemed to be its ”property” and supposed to be a live document till an action was taken on it and thereafter the same destined to be consigned to records. What, therefore, follows is that if an action was sought to be taken by any department other than the one which received the said application / complaint whatever the case, not merely an endorsement on it in original and thereafter sending the document in original to the action taking department should take place under any circumstances but copies of the order concerning that document and the copy of such document is required to be sent for necessary action.
Common sense and discretion both have it and, therefore precludes, one from resorting to such a practice as it ”robes” the originally addressed office/ department / authority of the document to be kept on record in original and, therefore , any query or reminder later by the said applicant would draw a blank and a zilch as there would be no trace of any reference. We know and therefore cherish that our courts are very meticulous about according due importance to every issue, complaint , grievance from any citizen, institution and the like and the systematic procedures are such which can never be thought to be of suffering from any dilution in attending to and referring to. That follows, as such, that record maintenance is of unparalleled levels of care, safe custody and supervision. However, the fact that certain set practices still continuing to be in vogue can become vulnerable to this extent that original papers addressed to courts can travel right in original to police stations for taking appropriate action is normally unexpected and unbelievable while being totally avoidable.
That is precisely for the reason of establishing propriety thus denying in the process the court to be in possession of the original record/ application etc. Should the situation reach this pass, as in a few cases, that the High Court should be constrained to give directions even in matters of routinely diarizing incoming post and keeping proper record thereof and viewing seriously goofs taking places in some trial courts? That depicts either efficiency has got somewhat weakened or such applications, petitions etc were considered just merely disposable in quite an ordinary way by just forwarding in original and closing the matter.
It does not auger very well that the High Court had virtually to ”warn” trial courts against an unhealthy practice of parting with the original document as a case came under its consideration where a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s office had sent the original endorsed application to the concerned police station in Magam Kashmir for necessary action as sought by an aggrieved petitioner. The order of the High Court, therefore, says that ”the action of forwarding the original application to the Police by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not in accordance with the law.” Copies of such applications and not those in original need to be parted with and sent to police stations was, what the order of the High Court further read. In imparting justice to the petitioner, the legal system is otherwise tailored to follow set procedures and accepted practices in which papers and their value and importance in deciding cases carry cardinal importance hence original documents are believed to be properly diarized, maintained and later made part of court records.