The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the principle that prolonged inaction in criminal investigations undermines public trust in the justice system. In a significant order under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court directed the completion of a two-and-a-half-year-old investigation, setting a clear timeline and mandating supervisory oversight to prevent indefinite delay.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner sought judicial intervention to compel the conclusion of an investigation into FIR No. 126 dated 05.09.2023, registered at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural, under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case involved allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy, with accused persons identified as respondent Nos. 5, 6, and Sukhbir Singh. Despite the registration of the FIR over two years prior, no charge sheet had been filed under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and no arrests had been made against the primary accused.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 126 was registered on 05.09.2023.
- As of the filing of the petition in April 2026, more than 2 years and 7 months had elapsed without any final report under Section 193 of BNSS.
- The petitioner submitted multiple representations to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (State authorities) demanding fair and expeditious investigation, all of which remained unaddressed.
- On 12.12.2025, the petitioner had previously filed CRM-M No. 50909 of 2025 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to complete the investigation within four weeks.
- Despite this prior direction, no charge sheet was filed, and no meaningful progress was reported.
- One accused has been arrested, charged, and released on bail.
- Another accused is currently in custody in an unrelated case; production warrants are being sought to join him in this investigation.
- Proceedings to declare the third accused a proclaimed offender have been initiated.
- The investigating agency has conducted raids on the accused’s residence but has not yet effected arrest.
Procedural History
- 05.09.2023: FIR No. 126 registered under Sections 420 and 34 IPC.
- Between 05.09.2023 and 12.12.2025: No investigation report filed; no arrests made beyond one accused.
- 12.12.2025: Petition CRM-M No. 50909 of 2025 disposed of with direction to complete investigation within four weeks.
- After 12.12.2025: No charge sheet filed; no further action taken.
- April 2026: Present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking direction to conclude investigation and arrest remaining accused.
- 20.04.2026: Hearing before Justice Subhas Mehla.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the investigating agency to conclude the investigation within a fixed time frame and to arrest the remaining accused persons, particularly those who had evaded arrest despite prolonged inaction.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Court can intervene under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enforce timely completion of a criminal investigation that has remained pending for over two years without any charge sheet being filed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the prolonged delay of over two years without filing a charge sheet under Section 193 of BNSS violates the right to speedy investigation, which is an essential facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on the Court’s earlier direction dated 12.12.2025, which was ignored, to demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance. He emphasized that the failure to conclude the investigation undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system and deprives the complainant of justice.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Advocate General for Punjab conceded that the investigation had been delayed but submitted that progress was underway: one accused had been arrested and released on bail, another was in custody in a different case and would be joined upon production, and proceedings to declare the third accused a proclaimed offender were in motion. He assured the Court that the investigation would be concluded shortly and that raids and efforts to locate the accused were ongoing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the State’s submissions but noted that assurances alone cannot substitute for accountability. It observed that the investigation had remained dormant for over two and a half years despite the prior judicial direction to conclude it within four weeks. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy investigation is not merely procedural but substantive, rooted in the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21.
"The delay of more than two years in concluding an investigation, especially after a prior judicial direction, cannot be countenanced in a rule of law system. The citizen’s faith in the criminal justice system hinges on timely action, not vague assurances."
The Court held that while the investigating agency is entitled to reasonable time, such time must be bounded by judicial oversight. The failure to file a charge sheet under Section 193 of BNSS for such an extended period raises serious concerns about the efficacy and integrity of the investigation. The Court further noted that the existence of partial progress - such as the arrest of one accused and initiation of proceedings against another - does not absolve the State of its duty to complete the entire investigation expeditiously.
The Court rejected the notion that the investigation could continue indefinitely under the guise of "best efforts." It held that judicial supervision is not only permissible but mandatory when delays become systemic.
The Verdict
The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to supervise the investigation personally and to ensure its conclusion within three months from the date of the order. The investigation shall be supervised by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Court mandated that a final report under Section 193 of BNSS be filed within this period, regardless of whether all accused are apprehended. The State was directed to submit a compliance report to the Court within 15 days of the expiry of the three-month period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Supervision Is Mandatory After Prolonged Delay
- Practitioners may now invoke Section 528 of BNSS to seek judicial intervention when investigations exceed 18 - 24 months without a charge sheet.
- Courts are likely to impose fixed timelines and designate supervisory officers in cases of systemic delay.
- Vague assurances from the State will no longer suffice; concrete action plans and deadlines are now required.
Partial Progress Does Not Excuse Inaction
- The arrest of one accused or initiation of proceedings against another does not absolve the investigating agency of its duty to complete the entire investigation.
- All accused named in the FIR must be accounted for in the final report, whether arrested, declared proclaimed, or otherwise.
- Failure to file a charge sheet within the mandated period may lead to contempt proceedings or further judicial intervention.
BNSS Section 193 Requires Timely Finalization
- The obligation to file a charge sheet under Section 193 is not discretionary but mandatory.
- Delay beyond 18 months without justification triggers judicial scrutiny under Article 21.
- Petitioners in similar cases should document all representations made to investigating authorities and cite prior judicial directions as evidence of persistent non-compliance.
