Court Does Not Become 'Functus Officio' After Directing Probe Under S.156(3) CrPC, Must Call For Progress Reports: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court held that once the direction for investigation was issued by the Criminal Court in terms of Section 156(3), CrPC, it does not become functus officio, but remained under an obligation to call for progress reports in case it found that the investigation was not completed within a reasonable time. The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that the Court had noticed many cases in which the proceedings remained pending before the Trial Court for years while repeated dates were fixed mechanically calling upon the effective status/progress report from the investigation agency."This Court has come across several writ petitions been filed only on account of non-compliance of directions issued by the Magistrate for conducting investigation in pursuance to order passed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C [175(3), BNSS]. It has been witnessed that in all such matters, despite specific direction of the Magistrate to carry out the investigation and file a conclusive report, neither is the investigation concluded within a reasonable period nor are the progress reports been filed for a long period. This Court has noticed that in many of such cases, the proceedings remain pending before the Trial Court for years while mechanically fixing repeated dates calling upon the effective status/progress report from the investigating agency. As a consequence, litigants approach this Court in extra-ordinary jurisdiction calling for implementation of orders which otherwise fall within the supervisory domain of the concerned Criminal Court.This Court feels constrained to observe that after a direction for investigation been issued by the Criminal Court in terms of Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., it does not become functus officio so as to keep on repeating the order-sheets to the effect that the progress/conclusive report is awaited".For context, the Court was hearing a petition seeking direction to the respondent-police authorities to complete the investigation within a reasonable time and submit report. The trial court had directed the Circle Officer, in April 2025, to conduct investigation and file conclusive report in May 2025. Despite such direction, no report in the matter was filed till date, even after passing of one year. Hence, the present petition was filed. The Court observed that it had come across several petitions which were filed only because of non-compliance of directions issued by the Magistrate for conducting investigation in terms of Section 156 (3), CrPC.The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu v. State of Bihar where it was held that although there were no strict timelines prescribed in CrPC, it was important that the investigation be completed in reasonable time. “The Court specifically held that if the Court finds that there is a large gap between the First Information Report and the culminating charge-sheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished,” the high court said.In this background, the Court held that the duties of the Magistrate/Criminal Court did not end after sending the matter under Section 156(3) CrPC to the investigating agency for investigation."The Court is also under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor the said investigation. It is under an obligation to call for the progress reports, if it finds that the investigation is not been completed within a reasonable time or is unnecessarily delayed. The investigation cannot be lingered on by the investigating agency for years without any logical conclusion thereof. The same not only hampers the rights of the victim/complainant, but also that of the accused," the court said. Accordingly, the Court directed the trial court to ensure that the conclusive investigation report/charge sheet/final report was filed by the investigation officer, in the present matter, within 6 weeks. In case of failure, the trial court shall be at the liberty to pass appropriate orders against the erring officer. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of. Title: Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 234Click Here To Read/Download Order

Court Does Not Become 'Functus Officio' After Directing Probe Under S.156(3) CrPC, Must Call For Progress Reports: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Court Does Not Become 'Functus Officio' After Directing Probe Under S.156(3) CrPC, Must Call For Progress Reports: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers