Is an Investigation That Continues for Years Without Progress Legally Sustainable?

Investigations that prolong for years without any substantial progress have become a persistent problem in India’s criminal justice system. Such delays not only weaken the prosecution’s case but also burden the accused with indefinite uncertainty, violating their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Courts have repeatedly examined whether an unending investigation—especially one where the police do not justify the delay—is legally sustainable. The jurisprudence reflects a clear trend: an investigation cannot be allowed to continue endlessly, and prolonged inaction or unexplained delay can be grounds for quashing criminal proceedings.

This position was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025), where the Court held that investigative delay spanning nearly two decades, without fresh material or reasonable justification, amounted to a violation of Article 21 and warranted quashing of proceedings.

Factual Background

Posting and Responsibilities

The appellant, an IAS officer of the 1997 batch, was posted as District Magistrate (DM), Saharsa, from December 2002 until April 2005. In this role, he acted as the statutory licensing authority for the issuance of arms licences.

Trigger for Investigation

In 2004, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a communication warning about large-scale irregularities in arms licences across the country, insisting on verification processes and systemic reforms. This letter became the foundational trigger for inquiries in Saharsa.

During verification conducted by police personnel, it was discovered that seven arms licences had been issued without proper verification. The FIR alleged:

• Some licensees were “not physically capable”
• One license was issued to a fictitious person
• Some persons had doubtful antecedents
• DM allegedly acted in “criminal conspiracy” to extend undue favour.

Initial Investigation and Clean Chit (2005–2006)

After the investigation, the police submitted:

Primary chargesheet (2005): Only one accused (a licensee) was sent up for trial.

Supplementary chargesheet (2006): The allegations against the appellant were found false, noting no offence was made out under the Arms Act.

The complainant also recorded no objection to the closure.

Request for Re-Investigation (2007–2009)

Despite the closure report, the police later sought “re-investigation,” pointing out:

• One licensee (Abhishek Tripathi) was non-existent at the stated address.
• This, they claimed, showed “deliberate conspiracy” by the appellant.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate held:

• Re-investigation is impermissible,
• But further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is allowed.

Departmental Proceedings (2015–2016)

The General Administration Department issued a show-cause notice asking the appellant to explain issuance of licences to 16 persons. He responded that:

• Police reports were duly called for.
• Under Section 13(2A), Arms Act, he was competent to grant licences after waiting a reasonable time if no police report was submitted.
• He had revoked questionable licences once irregularities were noticed.
• No misuse of licence was ever reported.

The departmental proceeding was closed, and the appellant was discharged in February 2016.

Further Investigation and Chargesheet (2020)

Despite discharge, police submitted a fresh chargesheet in 2020, 11 years after permission for “further investigation”.

Sanction for Prosecution (2022)

The State Government granted sanction under Section 197 CrPC, alleging prima facie involvement in a conspiracy relating to the issuance of arms licences.

High Court Proceedings

The Patna High Court (2025) dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC, observing:

• The issuance of licences showed “illegality and irregularity.”
• The departmental discharge “was not a clean exoneration.”
• Trial should be expedited.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant’s Arguments

• Section 13(2A), Arms Act gives discretion to issue licences even without police verification where reports are not submitted on time.
• No evidence or chargesheet suggests conspiracy or corruption on his part.
• The appellant was exonerated in departmental proceedings.
• The delay of 15+ years in filing the chargesheet and further delays in the trial vitiate the proceedings.
• The sanction order is non-speaking, mechanical, and invalid.
• Some co-accused licensees have already been acquitted by the High Court.
• Bhajan Lal principles apply; continuation of prosecution is an abuse of process.

State’s Arguments

• Issuance of licences to unverified and fictitious persons was an abuse of official powers.
• Exercise of power under Section 13(2A) cannot be arbitrary.
• Departmental discharge does not grant immunity.
• The sanction is proper and valid.
• Case of appellant is distinct from co-accused licensees.

Issues for Consideration

1. Whether the appellant validly exercised discretion under Section 13(2A), Arms Act.
2. Whether the sanction order under Section 197 CrPC is valid.
3. Whether continued prosecution is permissible despite the inordinate delay and original “closure report”.
4. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings.
5. Whether the appellant’s right to speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 was violated.

Court’s Analysis

Scope of Section 13(2A) — Discretion of Licensing Authority

The Court agreed that:

• The licensing authority must call for a police report.
• If the police fail to furnish it within the prescribed time, the DM may act without it.
• The Arms Rules (1962) did not specify any time limit — meaning the test is one of “reasonable time.”

The Court found that, except for one instance (licence issued within two days), the records did not show unreasonable exercise of discretion.

Sanction Order Under Section 197 — Mechanical and Invalid

The Court found the sanction order fundamentally flawed:

• It did not reflect application of mind.
• It relied on vague references like “perusal of documents”.
• It did not discuss the material or reasoning behind the prima facie satisfaction.

Referring to Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan, the Court held sanction must disclose:

• Independent evaluation
• Application of mind
• Objective satisfaction

Effect of Invalid Sanction

Since sanction is a condition precedent for cognizance:

• Cognizance order dated 1 June 2022 was vitiated.
• All consequential proceedings had to be quashed.

The sanction was therefore set aside.

Delay of 20 Years — Violation of Article 21 (Speedy Trial)

This was a decisive factor.

Key findings:

• Further investigation ordered in 2009; chargesheet filed only in 2020 — 11-year gap.
• Initial chargesheet already gave a clean chit in 2006.
• Even after cognizance (2022), trial did not progress for two years.

The Court relied on precedents:

• Abdul Rehman Antulay (Constitution Bench): Speedy trial covers investigation, inquiry, trial, and appeal.
• P. Ramachandra Rao (7-judge): Courts cannot ignore chronic delay.
• Recent 2025 judgments reaffirming the right to a prompt investigation.

The Court held:

“How long can this continue? Investigation spanning nearly two decades offends Article 21."

Sustainability of Further Investigation

Though “further investigation” is permissible (unlike re-investigation), the manner in which authorities delayed it defeated fairness.

The Court remarked:

• No new material emerged.
• No explanation was offered for the 11-year delay.
• Such delay is inherently prejudicial.

No Evidence of Conspiracy

The Court found:

• No material linking appellant with conspiracy.
• No allegations of bribery or corruption.
• Police themselves found allegations “false” in 2006.

Applicability of Bhajan Lal Principles

Given:

• Absence of evidence
• Invalid sanction
• Unjustifiable delay
• Abuse of process
• Initial closure report exonerating appellant

The Court concluded that the case fits squarely within Category (1), (3) & (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Key Observations of the Court

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed: 

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. 

Conclusion and Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding:

• Sanction order dated 27 April 2022 is invalid and is hereby quashed.
• Cognizance order dated 1 June 2022 is vitiated and stands quashed.
• All criminal proceedings arising from Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 112/2005 are quashed.
• Investigation and prosecution that dragged on for 20 years violate the fundamental right to a speedy trial.

Thus, the entire case against the appellant stands terminated.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams