In a significant ruling reinforcing the fundamental right to a speedy trial, the Supreme Court of India has held that the right under Article 21 extends to the stage of investigation, and unexplained delays in filing chargesheets can be a ground for quashing prosecution. The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, quashed the criminal proceedings against IAS officer Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu, citing an unjustified delay of over a decade in the investigation.
Crucially, the Court clarified the legal position regarding Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ruling that when a court grants permission for further investigation, it retains “judicial stewardship and control” over the process and is not rendered functus officio.
Case Summary
The appeal was filed against a judgment of the Patna High Court dated May 9, 2025, which had refused to quash the order of cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in 2022. The matter pertained to allegations of irregularities in granting arms licenses during the Appellant’s tenure as District Magistrate, Saharsa, in 2005.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the cognizance order and the sanction for prosecution. The Court observed:
“The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence.”
Background of the Case
The case dates back to the Appellant’s tenure as District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority in Saharsa between December 2002 and April 2005. Following a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs to streamline arms licensing, an enquiry revealed that seven licenses had allegedly been issued without proper verification. An FIR was lodged in April 2005, alleging violations of Section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
- Initial Closure: A chargesheet filed in 2006 stated that no offence was made out against the Appellant, terming the allegations “false.”
- Re-investigation: In 2007, police authorities sought re-investigation, citing the discovery of a “fake person” among the licensees. The Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC in June 2009.
- Departmental Discharge: In parallel departmental proceedings, the Appellant argued that under Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act, he had the discretion to issue licenses if the police report was not received within the prescribed time. The Department accepted this and discharged him in February 2016.
- Delayed Chargesheet: Despite the permission for further investigation being granted in 2009, the fresh chargesheet was submitted only on August 31, 2020—a gap of 11 years.
- Sanction: The State granted sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC on April 27, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s Contentions: The Appellant argued that the 15-year delay in filing the chargesheet violated his fundamental rights. He submitted that he exercised his discretion under Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act bona fide and that the chargesheet contained no evidence of conspiracy or corruption. He further argued that his exoneration in departmental proceedings should weigh in his favor and that the sanction order was a “non-speaking order.”
The State’s Contentions: The State of Bihar contended that the Appellant abused his power by issuing licenses to “questionable” and “fictitious” persons without waiting for police reports. They argued that the departmental discharge did not amount to an exoneration from criminal liability and that the acquittal of other co-accused did not automatically apply to the Appellant.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
1. Right to Speedy Investigation (Article 21): The Court relied on precedents like Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka to reiterate that “speedy trial” encompasses all stages, including investigation. The Bench noted the unexplained 11-year gap between the permission for further investigation (2009) and the chargesheet (2020):
“Why the investigation in this case took more than a decade to be completed is lost on us… No reason is forthcoming for this extended period.”
2. Invalid Sanction Order: The Court scrutinized the sanction order, which stated that satisfaction was reached “on perusal of the documents and evidences.” The Bench termed this vague and held:
“The sanction awarded… can in our considered view, in no way be said to be reflecting application of mind… If sanction is based on what can at best be described as vague statements… this protection would be obliterated.”
3. Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act: The Court observed that while the Appellant may not have acted strictly within the scope of Section 13(2A) in one specific instance (issuing a license just 2 days after seeking a report), the overwhelming delay and the administrative discharge weighed heavily against continuing the prosecution.
Directions: Judicial Control Over Supplementary Chargesheets
The judgment is legally significant for its specific directions regarding the role of courts in monitoring investigations:
- Court is Not Functus Officio: The Court held that since further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is done with the “leave of the court,” the court retains control.
“Since the further investigation is being made with the leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the court must perform.” - Mandatory Explanation for Delay: If there is a massive gap between the FIR and the chargesheet, the Court is “bound to seek an explanation” from the investigating agency.
- Remedy for Accused: The Court clarified that if an investigation continues for an unduly long period without justification, the accused or complainant is at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC seeking an update or quashing of the investigation.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings against the Appellant.
Case Details:
- Title: Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @RL Chongthu v. State of Bihar
- Case No: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10130 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1339
