Rajasthan HC Rebukes Five-Year-Old Stalled Murder Probe, Bars Police from Detaining Accused Without Concrete Evidence

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand disposed of cross petitions in a Dausa murder FIR, directing the Superintendent of Police to monitor the investigation and prohibiting the Investigating Officer from summoning accused persons to the police station without specific evidence against them.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has disposed of two cross criminal miscellaneous petitions arising from FIR No.109/2021 registered at Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa, for offences under Sections 365 and 302 IPC. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, expressed dissatisfaction with an investigation that had remained inconclusive for over five years and directed the Superintendent of Police, Dausa, to personally monitor the probe. The court also placed a clear restraint on the Investigating Officer: accused persons cannot be called to the police station and made to sit there from morning to evening unless there is specific evidence against them.

Two Petitions, Two Opposing Prayers

The matter before the court involved two petitions filed by parties on opposite sides of the same FIR. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.10426/2022 was filed by the accused — Gangasahay Sharma, his wife Sarita Sharma, and their minor son Bharatlal Sharma (the minor represented through his natural guardian and father, Gangasahay) — seeking quashing of FIR No.109/2021. All three are residents of Village Deladi, Police Station Kolwa, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5719/2021 was filed by the complainant, Ganpat Lal Sharma, also a resident of Village Deladi. His prayer was the opposite: he sought directions compelling the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation expeditiously, given that the FIR had been registered more than five years earlier.

Mr. Umesh Vyas appeared for the petitioners in the quashing petition. Mr. J.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor, appeared with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant Government Advocate, and Ms. Meeta Pareek for Mr. O.P. Mishra. Mr. Manohar Lal, Sub-Inspector, PS Kolwa, District Dausa, appeared in person along with the case diary and a factual report of the investigation conducted so far.

How the FIR Came to Be Registered

The complainant Ganpat Lal Sharma had initially filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui, under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Gangasahay, Sarita, Bharatlal Sharma, and one Shivani Sharma. The complaint alleged that the accused persons were involved in the murder of the deceased.

The learned Magistrate, on receiving the complaint, directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and sent the matter to Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa. This resulted in the registration of FIR No.109/2021 on 2 August 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 365 and 302 IPC.

The Accused: Harassment Without Evidence

The accused petitioners did not dispute the registration of the FIR in isolation. Their grievance was specific: despite claiming innocence and asserting that there was no evidence connecting them to the alleged incident, the Investigating Officer repeatedly called them to the police station and compelled them to remain there for the entire day, releasing them only in the evening. The petitioners described this conduct as humiliating and approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on those grounds.

The Investigating Officer's Position

When the court directed the Public Prosecutor to ensure the Investigating Officer's personal appearance, Mr. Manohar Lal, SI, PS Kolwa, appeared before the bench with the case diary. He submitted that the evidence collected so far showed the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons.

He further disclosed that on 17 October 2022, he had applied before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui, for conducting a Polygraph Test of accused Gangasahay and Sangeeta. That application was rejected by the Magistrate on 20 October 2022 on the ground that both accused had not given their consent for the test. Without consent, the Polygraph Test could not be conducted. The Investigating Officer then sought additional time from the High Court to conclude the investigation and submit a conclusion report.

Court's Reasoning: Indefinite Investigation Not Permissible

Justice Dhand was unambiguous in his assessment. The court recorded that it was “not satisfied with the investigation conducted so far by the Investigating Officer.” More than five years had elapsed since the registration of FIR No.109/2021, and the investigation remained open-ended.

The bench held that an Investigating Officer cannot be permitted to keep an investigation pending for an indefinite or infinite period. The obligation under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to conduct and complete the investigation expeditiously and to submit a conclusion report — either a charge-sheet or a Final Report (Negative) — under Section 173 CrPC before the concerned court. The court expressed that it “hopes, trusts and believes” the Investigating Officer would conclude the investigation and submit the report accordingly.

On the question of the accused being summoned to the police station, the court drew a clear line. The Superintendent of Police, Dausa, was directed to monitor the investigation and ensure that the accused are not harassed unnecessarily on the pretext that their presence is required for interrogation, unless there is a certain amount of specific evidence against them. Where interrogation is genuinely required, the Investigating Officer retains the liberty to conduct it. However, calling accused persons to the police station and compelling them to remain there from morning to evening, without any concrete evidence, was expressly prohibited.

The court's reasoning reflects a balance: the investigation must proceed and conclude, but the process cannot be used as a tool to harass persons against whom no concrete evidence has yet emerged. The direction to the SP to personally monitor the probe adds an institutional accountability layer that the Investigating Officer alone had not provided in over five years.

Outcome

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand disposed of both S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.10426/2022 (the accused's quashing petition) and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5719/2021 (the complainant's petition for expeditious investigation) with the above directions. The stay applications and all other pending applications in both petitions were also disposed of. The order was passed on 21 May 2026.