Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Aslam Khan S/o Khurshid Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1646 of 2026
Decided On : 16-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Constitutional Rights and Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure - Investigative inertia - Pendency of proceedings against an individual not named in the initial report - Acquittal of co-accused in the underlying matter - Absence of fresh incriminating material or discovery after a significant lapse of time - Continued pendency of a stale case constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. (Paras 4.4, 4.10, 4.13)
Facts of the case:
A criminal proceeding was initiated more than two decades ago. The petitioner was not named in the initial information report. Subsequent investigations resulted in the trial and acquittal of other individuals. Despite the passage of years, no supplementary evidence, progress, or coercive measures occurred against the petitioner, even after the petitioner sought judicial protection. The petitioner approached the court to seek the quashing of proceedings due to the indefinite and oppressive delay.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation remained in a state of total stagnation for over twenty years without any meaningful advancement. The absence of credible material against the petitioner combined with the extensive period of inactivity rendered the continued existence of the proceedings an infringement of the constitutional right to fair and expeditious procedural justice.
Issues: Whether the indefinite pendency of an investigation lacking substantive progress or incriminating evidence violates the constitutional right to speedy justice and amounts to an abuse of the criminal process.
Ratio Decidendi: Stale investigations characterized by extraordinary delay and investigative passivity are antithetical to the rule of law. Where a matter remains in a state of technical pendency for decades without development or evidentiary linkage, the court must exercise its inherent powers to prevent the oppression of the individual and protect them from perpetual uncertainty, as such inaction is incompatible with constitutional mandates of reasonableness.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
For the Appellant : Zafar Khan
For the Respondent: N.S. Chandawat
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of petition regarding delayed investigation and pendency of fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of cumulative facts establishing investigative stagnation and absence of material. (Para 4) |
| 3. quashment of stale criminal proceedings to ensure constitutional justice. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the inherent/extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate relief in relation to FIR No. 590/2004 registered at Police Station Nimbahera for the offence under Section 379 IPC, with the grievance that despite lapse of an inordinate period of time, the spectre of unresolved investigation continues to loom over him, though no substantive material has ever surfaced against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR pertains to the year 2004 and was registered for the offence under Section 379 IPC, wherein the petitioner was not named. It is contended that after investigation, seven persons alone were charge-sheeted and tried, who ultimately came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimbahera. It is further urged that no proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner, nor was any action for abscondence or proclamation undertaken. Despite absence of incriminating material, the petitioner was once subjected to harassment by police officials, compelling him to seek anticipatory bail, which was granted by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 03.10.2020. Learned counsel submits that even thereafter more than five years have elapsed and no further action has been taken, yet the petitioner continues to remain under constant apprehension of coercive proceedings. It is thus contended that such indefinite pendency of investigation, without any progress or material against the petitioner, is violative of the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice under Article 21, and therefore, all proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be dropped.
3. Per contra, learned Dy.G.A. opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that mere lapse of time by itself does not ipso facto extinguish the authority of the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law. It is contended that the powers of investigation are statutory in character and unless the proceedings are shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or patently mala fide, interference by this Court ought to be exercised with circumspection. Learned Dy.G.A. further submits that the petitioner having obtained anticipatory bail already stands sufficiently protected against unwarranted arrest, and no prejudice can be said to have been occasioned merely on account of pendency of the FIR. It is thus prayed that the petition deserves dismissal.
4. This Court has bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and has carefully examined the material available on record. Upon such consideration, certain foundational and undisputed circumstances emerge with sufficient clarity. Firstly, the FIR in question pertains to the year 2004. Secondly, the petitioner was not named in the first information report. Thirdly, during the original course of investigation, seven other persons were proceeded against, charge-sheeted, and put to trial. Fourthly, the said trial culminated in acquittal of all the charge-sheeted accused in the year 2012. Fifthly, no proceedings of any effective nature have ever been shown to have remained pending against the present petitioner. Lastly, even after grant of anticipatory bail in the year 2020, no consequential or meaningful investigative action appears to have been undertaken. These circumstances form the backdrop against which the controversy requires adjudication.
4.1. It is significant to note that the petitioner was not named in the FIR at the inception of the criminal proceedings. Ordinarily, though non-naming in an FIR is not by itself decisive, ye
