Magistrate Not Functus Officio After Ordering 156(3) CrPC Probe; Must Actively Monitor Investigation Progress: Rajasthan High Court

"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," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a Magistrate does not lose jurisdiction or become functus officio after directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that the Trial Court is under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor the investigation to ensure it reaches a logical conclusion within a reasonable timeframe. The Court emphasized that judicial oversight is essential to prevent the investigating agency from lingering on matters for years without justification.

The petitioner, Sumann Mundhara, approached the High Court seeking directions for the police authorities to complete the investigation in a 2024 criminal case. Despite an explicit order from the Trial Court dated April 15, 2025, directing the Circle Officer, Bikaner, to file a conclusive report by May 2025, no such report was submitted for over a year. The petitioner contended that the lack of progress hampered the pursuit of justice, necessitating the exercise of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

The primary question before the Court was whether a Magistrate’s responsibility ends upon passing an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court also examined the extent of the Trial Court’s power to monitor the progress of such investigations and the impact of prolonged investigative delays on the rights of both the complainant and the accused.

Magistrate’s Power to Monitor Investigation

The Court observed that several writ petitions are filed in the High Court solely because directions issued by Magistrates for investigations are not complied with by the police. Justice Borana noted that in many cases, Trial Courts mechanically fix repeated dates and merely record that the status report is awaited. This practice, the Court held, fails to fulfill the supervisory domain of the concerned Criminal Court.

Court Reaffirms Duty of Judicial Oversight

The High Court clarified that the Magistrate’s role is not passive after an investigation is ordered. Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court reiterated that the Magistrate has wide powers to ensure a proper investigation and can even monitor the process. The bench emphasized that the Magistrate remains responsible for ensuring the investigating agency complies with judicial timelines.

“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.”

Evolution of Prompt Investigation as a Statutory Right

The Court delved into the historical evolution of criminal procedure, noting the shift from the colonial model of exclusive police competence to the modern era of judicial accountability. While early frameworks like the Code of 1861 offered minimal judicial supervision, the 1973 Code and the latest BNSS 2023 introduced oversight mechanisms. The Court highlighted that Section 173(1) CrPC (now Section 193(1) BNSS) mandates that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

Process of Investigation Must Be Completed With Promptitude

Citing the recent Supreme Court judgment in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu Vs. State of Bihar (2025), the Court observed that "speedy trial" encompasses all stages, including investigation. Justice Borana noted that although strict timelines may be impracticable in some instances, investigations cannot continue endlessly. The Court stated that a large gap between the FIR and the charge-sheet requires a satisfyng explanation from the investigating agency.

“If the Court finds that there is a large gap between the First Information Report and the culminating charge-sheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished.”

Remedies for Unduly Prolonged Investigations

The Court remarked that an unduly prolonged investigation infringes upon the rights of both the victim and the accused. It affirmed that if an investigation continues for an unreasonably long period without adequate justification, the parties are at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS). Such delay can even serve as a ground for the accused to pray for the quashing of the FIR.

The High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and disposed of the petition with a strict direction to the Trial Court. The Trial Court was ordered to ensure the filing of the conclusive investigation report or charge-sheet within a period of six weeks. Furthermore, the High Court granted the Trial Court the liberty to pass appropriate orders against the investigating officer should they fail to comply with this stipulated period.

Date of Decision: 18 May 2026