Prolonged delays in criminal investigations can infringe upon a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, warranting quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.805 of

2008 registered by the Chengamanad Police Station, Ernakulam alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419 , 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 12(1)(b)(d) of the Passport Act .

2. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash Annexure-1 FIR dated 22.09.2008 on the assertion that even after the lapse of nearly 18 years the investigating officer has not laid the Final Report. Therefore, the entire proceedings as against the petitioner may be quashed.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 21.09.2008, at around 08.45 hours, the petitioner arrived from Dubai in Flight No.EK 530 at the Cochin International Airport using a forged passport issued in the name of one Padiyil Karunan.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned DSGI.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that, although Annexure-1 FIR was registered on 22.09.2008, the investigation in this case is not complete and final report has not been filed even after the lapse of nearly 18 years. The allegations in FIR do not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. In view of the inordinate delay in completing the investigation, the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. The learned counsel relies on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 INSC 1339) to buttress his contention that if the investigation is not completed within a reasonable time period, the entire prosecution can be quashed. The learned counsel submits that the principles in the above decision apply on all fours to the case at hand.

Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. The Investigating Officer has filed a statement, inter alia,contending that the investigation is in progress. There is no willful laches on the part of the Investigating Officer. In fact, the investigation in the crime got delayed because it was handed over to the Crime Branch. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

7. Admittedly, Anenxure-1 FIR was registered on 22.09.2008. Investigation in this case is not complete and final report has not been laid.

8. In Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu’s case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering an identical matter, 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 timeline