Courts Must Monitor Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC & Call For Progress Reports If Delayed: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court observed that Criminal Courts are under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor police investigations directed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and are under an obligation to call for progress reports if it finds that the investigation is not completed.

The Court disposed of a criminal writ petition wherein the investigating agency had failed to submit a conclusive report to the Trial Court in Bikaner for over a year.

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court directed the Trial Court to ensure the submission of the final report or charge-sheet within six weeks, granting it the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the erring Investigating Officer in the event of non-compliance.

The Bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed, "In the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the present is a fit case wherein the Court is required to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. This Court is of the view that the Magistrate/Criminal Court does not absolve of its duties after sending the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the investigating agency for investigation. The Court is also under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor the said investigation. It is under an obligation to call for the progress reports, if it finds that the investigation is not been completed within a reasonable time or is unnecessarily delayed. The investigation cannot be lingered on by the investigating agency for years without any logical conclusion thereof. The same not only hampers the rights of the victim/complainant, but also that of the accused."

Advocate Navneet Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while PP Ramesh Devasi appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondent police authorities to expeditiously complete the investigation in the concerned criminal case and submit the final report before the learned Trial Court.

The matter originated from a complaint filed by the complainant, wherein the learned Trial Court took note of the accompanying documents and directed the Circle Officer, Bikaner, to undertake a thorough investigation and submit a conclusive report by a specified deadline. However, despite the categorical directions of the learned Trial Court, the investigating agency failed to file the final report, and the matter languished for over a year without reaching a logical conclusion.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court observed that numerous writ petitions were being filed solely due to the non-compliance of directions issued by Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) / Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court noted with concern that despite explicit judicial directions to conclude investigations and file conclusive reports, investigating agencies neither completed the process within a reasonable time nor submitted regular progress reports.

The Court remarked that proceedings frequently remained pending before Trial Courts for years, with Magistrates mechanically fixing repeated dates to call for status reports. It was observed that a Criminal Court did not become functus officio after passing an order for investigation, and it was improper to merely repeat order-sheets stating that the progress report was awaited.

"This Court feels constrained to observe that after a direction for investigation been issued by the Criminal Court in terms of Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., it does not become functus officio so as to keep on repeating the order-sheets to the effect that the progress/conclusive report is awaited", the Court said.

Relying upon the settled jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court observed that the right to a speedy trial encompassed all stages of criminal justice, including the investigative phase. The Court noted that while strict statutory timelines for investigations were impracticable, they could not be allowed to continue endlessly, as an unduly prolonged investigation violated the rights of both the victim and the accused.

The Court observed that the Magistrate was under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor the investigation, rather than remaining a passive spectator. It was further held that where an extraordinary delay occurred between the initiation of criminal proceedings and the final report, the Court was duty-bound to seek a justifiable explanation from the investigating agency.

Finding the case fit for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the learned Trial Court to strictly ensure that the Investigating Officer submitted the final report or charge-sheet within a stipulated period of six weeks, failing which the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed against the erring officer.

Cause Title: Sumann Mundhara v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:23857]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Navneet Singh

Respondents: PP Ramesh Devasi

Click here to read/download the Order