Prolonged investigation time violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, warranting quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1176 of 2014 registered by the Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam, on 25.07.2014, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323, 324 and 326 read withSection 34of theIndian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, though the crime was registered on 25.07.2014, the investigation of the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. However, the Investigating Officer has filed Annexure B undetected report. In view of Annexure B, the case as against the petitioners is not closed. The petitioners are unable to obtain the police clearance certificate, which in turn is an infringement of the petitioners' right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . Unless a final report or refer report is filed in the above crime, the petitioners' right to travel would be infringed. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the contentions in the Crl.M.C. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R.L.Chongthu v. State of Bihar [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511] in support of his contention that the Supreme Court has categorically held that, if investigation in the case is not complete within a particular time period, the proceedings can be quashed. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the proceedings may be quashed.

5. Annexure A FIR was registered on 25.07.2014, which is more than 11 years now. Undisputably, the Investigating Officer has not concluded the investigation, but has only filed Annexure B undetected report.

6. While considering a case of an identical nature, in Robert Latchungnunga Chongthu's (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:

“19. Coming back to the present case, why the investigation in this case took more than a decade to be completed is lost on us. Apparently, it was found that the licenses issued by the appellant were also issued to a fictitious person even at the time when the order for further investigation was taken. Out of the 16 accused persons one person stood charge-sheeted in terms of the first chargesheet and the remaining, excluding the appellant and one Abhishek, were charge-sheeted by way of the second chargesheet. When only the actions of the appellant were subject matter of investigation by the time permission was taken as above - 11 years is quite obviously a timeline afflicted by delay. No reason is forthcoming for this extended period either in the chargesheet or at the instance of the Court having taken cognizance of such chargesheet. In other words, the appellant has had the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years. The judgments above referred to supra hold unequivocally that investigation is covered under the right to speedy trial and it is also held therein, that violation of this right can strike at the root of the investigation itself, leading it to be quashed. At the same time, it must be said that timelines cannot be set in stone for an investigation to be completed nor can outer limit be prescribed within which necessarily, an investigation must be drawn to a close. This is evidenced by the fact that further investigation or rather permission therefor, can be granted even after commencement of trial. [See: Rampal Gautam v The State , Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) 7968 of 2016] Where though, Article 21 would be impacted would be a situation where, like in the present matter, no reason justifiable in nature, can be understood from record for the investiga