Magistrate doesn’t become functus officio after ordering probe u/s 156(3) CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate who directs an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC does not become functus officio, and remains under a bounden duty to supervise and monitor the investigation and to call for progress reports where it is not completed within a reasonable time.

Justice Rekha Borana observed that a criminal court is not absolved of its duties merely upon sending a matter for investigation, and that an investigation cannot be allowed to linger for years without any logical conclusion, which prejudices the rights of both the complainant and the accused.

The Court observed: “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.”

The petition was filed by Sumann Mundhara, seeking a direction to the police authorities in Bikaner to complete the investigation in a criminal case and submit a report to the trial court. The trial court had, by an order dated 15 April 2025, directed the Circle Officer to undertake a thorough investigation and file a conclusive report by 22 May 2025 — which admittedly was not done.

The Court noted that it had come across several writ petitions filed only because directions issued by Magistrates under Section 156(3) CrPC [Section 175(3) BNSS] went uncomplied with, with proceedings remaining pending for years while dates were mechanically fixed for status reports. It observed that after directing investigation, the criminal court does not become functus officio so as to keep repeating order-sheets recording that a report is awaited.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sakiri Vasu v State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Court noted that a Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation and may even monitor it, and that a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC ought not to be entertained merely because a person grieves that proper investigation has not been done — the remedy lying instead under Section 156(3) or in a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Here, however, the petitioner had already approached the competent criminal court, which had directed investigation, yet no conclusive report was filed even after more than a year.

Citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v State of Bihar and Sovaran Singh Prajapati v State of U.P., the bench reiterated that the process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude, and that while no strict timelines are prescribed, investigations cannot continue endlessly. It noted the apex court’s direction that where there is a large gap between the FIR and the charge-sheet, the court is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency.

The Supreme Court had held, the bench noted: “If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification… the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C., seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing.”

Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the trial court to ensure that the conclusive investigation report — charge-sheet or final report — is filed by the investigating officer within six weeks, and clarified that if the officer fails to do so, the trial court would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders against the erring officer.

Title: Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2136/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:23857]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Navneet Singh

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Ramesh Devasi, Public Prosecutor