An inordinate and unexplained delay of over a decade in completing a criminal investigation violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.376/2016 registered by the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that;

On 06.02.2016, at around 21:15 hours, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL -27-E-5318 in a rash and negligent manner, he hit the vehicle against the brother of the de facto complainant, named Sreekumar, who suffered serious injuries. Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has asserted in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, although Annexure A1 FIR was registered on 08.02.2016, even after the lapse of a decade, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 KHC 6957), the entire proceedings has to be quashed. The inordinate delay in completing the investigation is an infringement of petitioner’s right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

4 I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the Crl. M.C. He submitted that the final report has not been filed. Therefore, going by the principles laid down in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu’s case (supra), the proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that the final report was filed on 31.03.2016. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above decision are not applicable to the facts of the case.

7. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, by communication dated 10.04.2026, has informed this Court that, on verification of the records, the final report in the above case has not been filed till date.

8. Indisputably, Annexure A1 FIR was registered on

08.02.2016. Going by the report of the Trial Court, the final report has not been filed till date.

9. 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