The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over prolonged delays in police investigations across Uttar Pradesh as it observed that there is "total lethargy and inaction" on the part of Investigating Officers in completing investigations.

"The problem is not only confined to one district rather it appears to be prevailing throughout the State of U.P. However, this may not be taken as if we have given final opinion with regard to the malady", a Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava remarked.

The division bench made this observation while hearing a petition seeking transfer of an investigation in a murder case to an independent agency.

It added that complainants are repeatedly approaching courts for effective and impartial investigations into FIRs, where investigations continue for months, if not years, without the final report seeing the light of day.

The Bench accordingly directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit explaining how the problem of investigations being kept pending for prolonged periods could be addressed.

The affidavit must indicate whether a time frame for completing investigations can be fixed and, if not, how the problem can otherwise be remedied.

Briefly put, an FIR was registered on November 24, 2024, pertaining to an alleged murder case for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioner submitted that a chargesheet in the case had been filed on April 21, 2025.

However, the jurisdictional court directed further investigation by the concerned Circle Officer or any other Circle Officer.

The petitioner contended that despite the direction for further investigation, the matter had been "hanging fire" and the authorities had failed to submit a report before the concerned court.

Hence, the petitioner prayed that the probe be transferred to an independent specialised agency, preferably the CB-CID or a court-monitored Special Investigation Team.

The State, on the other hand, admitted that a further investigation was underway and that the matter remained under investigation.

Taking note of these facts, the High Court observed that the chargesheet submitted by the police had not found favour with the concerned court, which had prima facie found the investigation to be "unbelievable and unnatural".

It further noted that more than eight months had elapsed since the February 21 order directing further investigation, but the authorities had failed to conclude it.

"The matter is still hanging fire and the report is still to see the light of the day", the Court observed.

The Bench then examined Section 193 BNSS (Report of police officer on completion of investigation) which deals with the report of a police officer on completion of investigation.

It noted that while Section 193(2) prescribes a two-month period for completing investigations into specified sexual offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act, no specific time frame has been prescribed for other investigations.

However, the Court noted that Section 193(1) categorically provides that "every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay".

It observed that the legislative intent was to ensure that investigations do not remain pending indefinitely.

The Bench also referred to Section 193(3)(ii), which requires the police officer to inform the informant or victim about the progress of the investigation within 90 days.

It noted that the provision also requires the officer to communicate the action taken on the information relating to the commission of the offence to the person who first provided it.

Referring to Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, the Court observed that such information is required to be communicated through SMS, email, other appropriate electronic means or by post.

The Bench remarked that these provisions indicate that a complainant or informant is required to be kept informed about the investigation being conducted by the Investigating Officer.

It observed thus:

"The intention of the legislature was that the investigation should not keep hanging fire and the complainant made to run from pillar to post without any information also being given to him with regard to the progress of the investigation which is being conducted by the Investigating Officer".

The Court observed that it was repeatedly dealing with such matters pertaining to the long delay in investigation.

In this regard, it observed thus:

"…it is high time that the higher authorities should step in and frame modalities pertaining to the time frame in which an endeavour should be made to complete the investigation, including punitive action to be taken against the Investigating Officers who do not complete the investigation within a specified time".

In view of the recurring complaints of delayed investigations, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a personal affidavit within three weeks.

The affidavit must also disclose the number of cases in which information about investigation progress had been communicated to complainants or victims, as required under Section 193 of the BNSS.

At this stage, the information was confined to FIRs registered in Sultanpur district. The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 8.

The Court directed that if the personal affidavit is not filed, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) shall appear in person along with the relevant records to assist the Court.