The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a five-year delay in concluding a criminal investigation, after it was revealed that the police had already filed a final report. The judgment underscores that while prolonged inaction violates Article 21, the remedy lies in judicial oversight of investigative timelines - not in continued litigation once the investigation is complete.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, P.S.V. Srinivasarao, a former principal of Rao and Naidu Engineering College, Ongole, filed a complaint against respondents including the college secretary and principal, alleging criminal misconduct. The complaint was referred to the Ongole Taluq Police Station, leading to the registration of Crime No. 648 of 2014 under Sections 211, 418, 409, 462, and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 15.04.2014 following the petitioner’s complaint
- The investigation remained pending for over five years without any final report
- The petitioner filed multiple representations seeking completion of investigation
- No interim orders or directions were issued by any court during this period
- The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 15.07.2021, alleging violation of Article 21 due to inordinate delay
Procedural History
- 15.04.2014: FIR registered as Crime No. 648 of 2014 at Ongole Taluq Police Station
- 23.01.2019: Investigating Officer filed Proceedings No. C.No.66/Refer/SDPO-O-2019, concluding the investigation and classifying the case as ‘False’
- 23.01.2019: Final Report (challan or closure report) submitted to the III Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ongole
- 15.07.2021: Writ Petition No. 19098/2021 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking direction to complete investigation
- 16.03.2026: Court heard arguments and was informed of the final report’s filing
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the five-year delay in investigation as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21, and directed the police to complete the investigation and submit the final report.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an inordinate delay of over five years in concluding a criminal investigation, without any final report, constitutes a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel completion of an investigation that has already been concluded.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the five-year delay in filing the final report was inexcusable and amounted to state inaction, thereby violating his right to a fair and speedy investigation under Article 21. He relied on Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to argue that undue delay in criminal proceedings, even at the investigation stage, undermines the foundational guarantee of justice. He emphasized that the absence of any progress for five years, despite the seriousness of the allegations under IPC Sections 409 and 467, rendered the investigation arbitrary.
For the Respondent
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the investigation had, in fact, been completed on 23.01.2019, with the Investigating Officer filing Proceedings No. C.No.66/Refer/SDPO-O-2019, classifying the case as ‘False’ and submitting the Final Report to the Magistrate. The delay, if any, was not due to negligence but due to procedural complexities in verifying documentary evidence. The petition was therefore rendered infructuous as the very relief sought had already been granted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the record and found that the Final Report had been submitted on 23.01.2019, nearly two years before the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner’s grievance, though valid in principle, was rendered academic by the subsequent completion of the investigation.
"The investigation has been concluded and the Final Report has been filed. The prayer for direction to complete the investigation is thus no longer maintainable."
The Court noted that while delays in investigation are constitutionally suspect and must be monitored, the remedy for such delay is not perpetual litigation but judicial review at the appropriate stage. Once the investigation is complete and the Final Report submitted, the matter falls within the domain of the Magistrate under Section 173 CrPC, and the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ceases to be the appropriate forum.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had not challenged the contents of the Final Report or sought direction for further proceedings before the Magistrate. The petition, therefore, was not about the legality of the investigation’s outcome but solely about its delay - which had already been remedied.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The Court closed the petition upon being informed that the Final Report had been filed on 23.01.2019. All pending miscellaneous petitions, including IA No. 1/2021 and IA No. 2/2021, were also closed. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Alone Does Not Sustain a Writ Once Investigation Is Complete
- Practitioners must verify whether the investigation has concluded before filing a writ petition under Article 226 seeking completion of probe
- Filing a writ petition after the Final Report is filed is an abuse of process and will be dismissed as infructuous
- The appropriate remedy post-Final Report is to challenge its contents before the Magistrate under Section 190 CrPC, not before the High Court
Article 21 Requires Proactive Monitoring, Not Reactive Litigation
- Courts must encourage police accountability through periodic monitoring of long-pending investigations, not through post-facto writs
- High Courts may consider issuing suo motu directions in cases of multi-year delays before the Final Report is filed
- Legal aid organizations should track FIRs pending beyond 12 months and file representation to the DGP or State Human Rights Commission
Final Reports Are Judicially Reviewable, But Not Through Mandamus for Completion
- A Final Report under Section 173 CrPC is subject to judicial scrutiny under Section 202 CrPC and Section 319 CrPC
- Petitioners must file objections to closure reports before the Magistrate, not seek mandamus for investigation completion
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are not a substitute for statutory remedies under CrPC
