1. Writ petition filed for direction to police to complete investigation in criminal case within reasonable period. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 750
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Sumann Mundhara D/o Late Shri Girdharilal Mundhara - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2136/2026
Decided On : 18-05-2026
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Navneet Singh
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ramesh Devasi, Public Prosecutor
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Navneet Singh
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ramesh Devasi, Public Prosecutor
Trial Courts are obligated to supervise and monitor investigations ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [175(3) BNSS] to ensure completion within a reasonable time. Undue delay without justification hampers the rights of both the victim and the accused, justifying High Court intervention.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 156(3) / 175(3), 173(1) / 193(1) and 482 / 528 - Direction for investigation - Failure to file conclusive report within reasonable time - Magistrate's role in monitoring investigation - Trial Court does not become functus officio after directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [175(3) BNSS]; it is under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor the process and call for progress reports if there is unnecessary delay (Paras 6, 13).
(B) Prompt Investigation - Process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude; investigations cannot continue endlessly without adequate justification as it hampers the rights of both the victim and the accused (Paras 10, 13). If an investigation is unduly prolonged, the aggrieved party may approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [528 BNSS] (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to police authorities to complete an investigation in a criminal case and submit a report to the Trial Court. The Trial Court had previously directed a thorough investigation and the filing of a conclusive report by a specific date. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, the conclusive report was not filed, and the trial court continued to fix dates without ensuring effective compliance.
Findings of Court:
The High Court observed that Trial Courts should not mechanically repeat orders for progress reports but must actively supervise the investigating agency. An unduly prolonged investigation without justification violates the principles of fairness and transparency and affects the rights of the parties involved.
Issues: Whether the High Court can intervene when police authorities fail to comply with a Trial Court's direction to complete an investigation within a reasonable period.
Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court has a supervisory obligation to monitor investigations ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [175(3) BNSS] and ensure they are completed without unnecessary delay. Prompt investigation is statutory and essential for a fair trial; therefore, failure to conclude an investigation within a reasonable time warrants judicial intervention to prevent endless delays.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to ensure the filing of the conclusive investigation report within six weeks, failing which the Trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders against the erring officer.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought completion of investigation; respondent police failed to file conclusive report despite court direction. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
3. Magistrate has wide powers to monitor investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; investigation must be completed without unnecessary delay. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Magistrate retains supervisory duty after Section 156(3) CrPC order; investigation cannot continue endlessly without logical conclusion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 )
5. Writ petition disposed; trial court directed to ensure filing of conclusive investigation report within six weeks. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Does a Magistrate become functus officio after issuing a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC?
No, the Magistrate retains supervisory jurisdiction to monitor investigation and call for progress reports if investigation is unduly delayed. (Para 6 , 7 , 13 )
7. What is the remedy if the police fail to conduct a proper investigation?
The remedy lies before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Does an unduly prolonged investigation affect the rights of the accused?
Yes, an unduly prolonged investigation gives the accused a right to pray for quashing of the FIR and discharge from all offences. (Para 13 , 14 )
Order
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Police Authorities be directed to complete the investigation in Criminal Case No. 1934/2024 within a reasonable period and submit a report thereof to the learned Trial Court as directed vide order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-4).
2. Heard the Counsels. Perused the Record.
3. It is evident that vide order dated 15.04.2025, the learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the documents as filed by the complainant along with the complaint, directed the Circle Officer, Bikaner to undertake thorough investigation and file the investigation/conclusive report by 22.05.2025. It is an admitted fact that the same has not been done till date.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409, observed that the Magistrate has wide powers not only to direct registration of First Information Report but also to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose, he can even monitor the investigation. The Court therein observed that no writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be entertained simply because a person has raised a grievance that proper investigation is not been done by the Police. Therein the remedy lies under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C..
8. But then, herein is a matter where the petitioner has already approached the competent Criminal Court and the Court has even directed the investigating agency to investigate into the matter. However, despite the said direction been made on 15.04.2025, no conclusive report has been filed in the matter till date, despite a period of more than one year having elapsed.
9. Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. [193(1) BNSS] provides that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
10.1 Interpreting the above provision, Hon’ble the Apex Court in its recent judgment of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu Vs. State of Bihar, AIROnline 2025 SC 1112 while considering the earlier judgment of Sovaran Singh Prajapati Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351 observed that, “process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude”. The Court observed that speedy trial would encompasses within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial – in short, everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with a final verdict. Therein, the Court while discussing the evolvement and development of the principle/concept of ‘prompt investigation’, observed and held as under:
“15. Moving further, it is to be noted that this aspect of prompt inve
