The State's failure to conduct effective investigations violates victims' rights under Article 21, necessitating compensation and accountability for systemic failures.

ORDER :

1. This criminal original petition has been filed to issue a direction to transfer the investigation in Cr. No. 215 of 2017 from the file of the third respondent to file of the fourth respondent and consequently, and to direct the fourth respondent to conduct proper investigation in an expeditious manner within the stipulated period.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a small shop near her house. On 11.06.2027, while she was in the said shop at around 08.00 p.m. one unkonwn person came into the shop and snatched 60 grams of gold chain (Mangal Sutra) from the neck of the petitioner valued at about Rs.4,50,000/-. On receipt of complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.215 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 379 of IPC. Even after a lapse of 9 years, there is no progress in the investigation. Hence, the petition.

3. The petitioner alleges that the third respondent police neither came to the house of the petitioner nor conducted the investigation properly and no effective investigation has been undertaken though nine years have passed and despite representations dated 12.12.2024, seeking recovery of gold ornament and file charge sheet, no progress has been made. If the investigation is continued by the third respondent, the real culprits would escape from the clutches of law.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that after completion of investigation, the final report has been filed as “Undetected” and RCS notice was also served in RCS No.68 of 2021.

5. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The case before this Court raise a larger question about the manner in which investigations into property offences are conducted and the legal consequences of the State’s failure to effectively discharge this responsibility. Though the case involves the complaint of theft they highlight a systemic concern — when the State, having assumed the exclusive authority to investigate and prosecute criminal offences, fails to identify the offender and closes the matter as “undetected”, what becomes of the victim’s right to justice?

7. The answer lies in understanding the evolution of the State’s prosecutorial role. In the early stages of human civilisation, the enforcement of criminal law was a private affair. The responsibility of protecting oneself and avenging a wrong rested solely with the individual or the community. As society evolved into an organised political State governed by law, the power to investigate, prosecute and punish offences was taken away from private citizens and vested in the State. This transformation was not merely administrative, but moral and constitutional in nature. It embodied the principle that crime is not only an offence against an individual but also an offence against the peace and order of the society.

8. Once this collective responsibility was assumed, the State became the guardian of public safety and the custodian of justice. Every First Information Report registered under the criminal law is, therefore, not a dispute between two private individuals but an assertion that the sovereign authority of law has been violated. The prosecution of offences in the name of the State is thus an acknowledgment of this constitutional arrangement — that it is the State’s solemn duty to ensure that wrongdoers are identif