11-year delay in FIR investigation violates Article 21; Raj HC declines to quash FIR but orders time-bound probe

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has expressed serious concern over inordinate delay in investigation of a criminal case pending for more than eleven years, holding that such prolonged pendency adversely affects the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, while declining to quash the FIR and instead issuing strict directions for its expeditious conclusion.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7231/2025, Jitendra Meena @ Jitendra Matsya vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., along with connected petitions, decided on 16.03.2026. Both the complainant as well as the accused had approached the Court seeking appropriate directions in relation to the impugned FIR registered in the year 2014.

At the outset, the petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that despite lapse of more than a decade, the investigation had not been concluded and no charge-sheet had been filed, thereby infringing his right to life and personal liberty. It was contended that such prolonged investigation amounts to abuse of process of law. Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Pavithran and Md. Ibrahim vs State of Bihar, to argue that unexplained delay vitiates criminal proceedings.

It was further submitted that even though a factual report had already indicated prima facie involvement of the accused persons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC, the Investigating Agency had failed to file the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. till date.

The Court took note of the repeated directions issued by coordinate benches over the years directing the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation. Despite specific timelines fixed by the Court, including directions to complete investigation by September 2025, the matter remained pending without justification.

The High Court expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of the Investigating Agency, observing that keeping an investigation pending indefinitely is “shocking and surprising” and reflects serious lapses on the part of the police machinery. The explanation furnished by the Investigating Officer—citing engagement in law and order duties such as Assembly sessions and public events—was held to be unsatisfactory.

While considering the prayer for quashing the FIR, the Court held that mere delay in investigation, though undesirable and violative of rights, does not automatically warrant quashing of criminal proceedings where allegations disclose cognizable offences. The Court emphasized that the appropriate course in such cases is to ensure expeditious completion of investigation rather than terminating proceedings at the threshold.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that prolonged investigation causes undue hardship to the accused and undermines the fairness of the criminal justice process, thereby engaging Article 21 protections.

In order to balance the competing interests, the Court issued stringent directions to the Investigating Agency. It directed the concerned Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation of the FIR within a period of six weeks and submit the final report before the competent court under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Further, the Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police (East), Jaipur were directed to monitor the investigation and ensure strict compliance with the Court’s directions. The Court warned that failure to comply would invite appropriate action, including contempt proceedings.

The Court also directed that if any representation is submitted by the accused, the Investigating Officer must examine the same and, if warranted, issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petitions were disposed of with directions, and all pending applications were also closed.

Case Title
Jitendra Meena @ Jitendra Matsya vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7231/2025 (with connected matters)

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Date of Pronouncement
16/03/2026

Advocates
For Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Mr. Aayush Malik
For Respondents: Major R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate with team; Public Prosecutors

Judgments Relied Upon
State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Pavithran (1990) 2 SCC 340
Tarak Desh Mukharjee vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
Paramjeet Batra vs State of Uttarakhand (2012)
Chanchalpati Das vs State of West Bengal, AIR 2023 SC 2710
Mohammad Wajid vs State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 219
Md. Ibrahim vs State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751