The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that an accused individual's right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, extends to the investigation stage. This landmark ruling emphasizes that unexplained delays in filing chargesheets can be grounds for quashing prosecution.

The ruling came as a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh quashed criminal proceedings against IAS officer Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu, citing an unjustified delay of over a decade in the investigation. The case stemmed from allegations of irregularities in granting arms licenses during Chongthu's tenure as District Magistrate of Saharsa between 2002 and 2005. An FIR was lodged in April 2005, alleging violations of the Arms Act, but the initial chargesheet in 2006 found no offense. However, in 2007, authorities sought reinvestigation, and a supplementary chargesheet was filed in 2020, with prosecution sanctioned in 2022.

The Supreme Court strongly condemned the "unreasonably long period" of 11 years taken for further investigation, noting that the accused had a "cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years". The court underscored that investigations cannot continue endlessly and that an accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with the threat of continuing investigation.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the legal position regarding Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), stating that when a court grants permission for further investigation, it retains "judicial stewardship and control" over the process and is not rendered functus officio. The court emphasized that if there is a significant gap between the FIR and the chargesheet, the court is "bound to seek an explanation" from the investigating agency.

To address delays in investigations, the Supreme Court issued several key directives:

• Right to Speedy Investigation: The court reiterated that "speedy trial" encompasses all stages, including investigation, relying on precedents such as Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka.
• Judicial Oversight: The court clarified that when further investigation is conducted with the court's leave, the court must perform judicial stewardship and control over the process.
• Explanation for Delay: If a significant time gap exists between the FIR and the chargesheet, the court must seek an explanation from the investigating agency.
• Remedy for Accused: If an investigation continues for an unduly long period without justification, the accused or complainant can approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update or quashing of the investigation.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the complexities of investigations and refrained from setting strict timelines. However, it emphasized that investigations cannot continue indefinitely and that accused individuals have the right to certainty about the charges against them within a reasonable time. The court observed that delay in completing an investigation will be considered as one of the grounds for potential quashing of proceedings.

This ruling reinforces the importance of timely investigation and upholds the fundamental rights of the accused, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in the criminal justice system. It serves as a reminder to investigating agencies to conduct probes diligently and expeditiously, preventing undue hardship and prolonged uncertainty for those under investigation.