Investigation Cannot Go Endlessly; Long Delay In Filing Chargesheet Can Be A Ground To Quash Proceedings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 20) held that trial courts do not become functus officio after permitting further investigation and are obligated to seek explanations from investigating agencies for significant delay in filing supplementary charge sheets.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh quashed the criminal proceedings against an IAS officer against whom further investigation had remained pending for 11 years, ruling that such unexplained and inordinate delay is sufficient to vitiate the entire prosecution.

Holding that inordinate delay in completing the investigation can be a ground to quash the proceedings, the Court observed,  "The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence."

The judgment authored by Justice Karol laid down the following directions for strengthening the procedure regarding the further investigation and filing of the supplementary charge sheets.

"(i) In view of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2003), it can be seen that the 'leave of the court' to file a supplementary chargesheet, is a part of Section 173(8) CrPC. That being the position, in our considered view, the Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission. Since the further investigation is being made with the leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the court must perform.

(ii) Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal law. They form the bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the justice system. If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first information report and the culminating chargesheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished. The direction above does not come based on this case alone. This Court has noticed on many unfortunate occasions that there is massive delay in filing chargesheet/taking cognizance etc. This Court has time and again, in its pronouncements underscored the necessity of speedy investigation and trial as being important for the accused, victim and the society. However, for a variety of reasons there is still a lag in the translation of this recognition into a reality.

(iii) While it is well acknowledged and recognised that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgement, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time, certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered.

(iv) Reasons are not only important in the judicial sphere, but they are equally essential in administrative matters particularly in matters such as sanction for they open the gateway to greater consequences. Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion."

Background

The genesis of the case dates back to 2005 when an FIR was lodged in Saharsa, Bihar, alleging that the Appellant, while serving as the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority (2002-2005), had issued arms licenses to fictitious and physically unfit persons without proper police verification.

The case saw a tortuous journey. The initial investigation in 2006 cleared the appellant, terming the allegations against him “false.” However, in 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted further investigation. It then took the investigating agency until 2020,a gap of 11 years,to file a supplementary chargesheet naming the officer as an accused. Sanction for prosecution was granted in 2022.

Apart from the aspect of the vitiated sanction order, the Court also condemned the “unreasonably long period” of 11 years taken for further investigation. The judgment stated that the appellant had “the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years.”

Reaffirming that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the investigation stage, the Court held, “investigations cannot continue endlessly.” It concluded that the accused “cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation,” and the delay itself was a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: ROBERT LALCHUNGNUNGA CHONGTHU @ R L CHONGTHU VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, AOR Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Adv. Mr. Shravanth Paruchuri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR