Delay in investigation exceeding reasonable time breaches the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.

184/2013 registered by the Fort Cochin Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 451 , 323, 324, 294(b) and

506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, although Annexure A1 FIR was registered on 02.03.2013, till date, the investigation in the case has not been completed, and the final report has not been laid. The inaction on the part of the Investigating Officer has caused severe prejudice and hardship to the petitioners. The petitioners’ fundamental right for the speedy disposal and trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been infringed. Hence, Annexure A1 FIR and all further proceedings may be quashed.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that;

On 28.02.2013, at around 22:45 hours, the accused persons had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and other victims, used obscene language and caused hurt to the defacto complainant.

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

4. The Crl.M.C. case was filed on 10.03.2026 and was called on 12.03.2026. This Court posted the case to 19.03.2026 for the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions from the Investigating Officer.

5. When the case was taken up for consideration on

23.03.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor sought further time to get instructions. Accordingly, this Court posted the case to 27.03.2026 as the last chance. On 27.03.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor again sought for further time to get instructions from the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the case was posted to today (30.03.2026).

6. Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that she has not received instructions from the Investigating Officer.

7. In Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar ( 2025 INSC 1339 ), the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held as follows:

“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