Kanhaiyalal Lashkari v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

passed by the competent Tehsildar, and that the applicant had no independent role in making such entries. It is further submitted that the applicant obtained relevant documents through RTI which accordingly to him demonstrates the absence of any criminal intent or wrongdoing (Annexure A/2 collectively). The grievance of the applicant is that despite registration of F.I.R. in the year 2013, the investigation is still pending and no final report has been filed till date. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 10 years in completion of investigation. The applicant has been subjected to prolonged harassment without any progress in the case. No prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Continuation of investigation amounts to abuse of process of law.

4 . Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations involve financial irregularities and require proper investigation. The delay in investigation though regrettable does not by itself warrant questioning of F.I.R. The matter is still under investigation and appropriate steps are being taken. 5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6. It is an admitted position that the F.I.R. was registered on 17.10.2013 and till date no charge sheet has been filed. Such an inordinate delay in investigation is a matter of serious concern and reflects adversely on investigation agency. The F.I.R. discloses allegations relating to manipulation of revenue record resulting in financial loss of the state. Whether the applicant acted under lawful authority or not is a matter requiring detailed investigation and cannot be adjudicated in proceeding under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. The defence of applicant that entries were made on the basis of order of competent authority involved

2

(HIMANSHU JOSHI)

JUDGE

disputed question of fact. Such issues cannot be examined in inherent jurisdiction and are to be determined during investigation. Mere delay in investigation, though undesirable, cannot by itself be a ground for questioning the F.I.R., particularly when the allegations discloses commission of cognizable offences. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to issue a direction for expeditious completion of investigation, rather than stifling the prosecution at the threshold. While the court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R., the prolonged pendency of investigation cannot be ignored. The applicant cannot be left in a state of uncertainty indefinitely. The prayer for quashment of F.I.R. dated 17.10.2013, bearing Crime Number No.263/13, registered at Police Station Dohara, District, Sehore is hereby rejected. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.

7. However, in the interest of justice, the respondent state authorities are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8. The Superintendent of Police concerned shall ensure compliance of this direction and monitor the progress of investigation. Jasleen

3