Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar; 2025 INSC 1339 - S.173(8) CrPC - Supplementary Chargesheet - Delay In Investigation
Constitution of India - Article 21 - Criminal Investigation-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 173(8),482- Right to speedy trial is an important facet of Article 21- Timely completion of investigation is inherent thereto. (Para 14) - It may be true that no strict timelines are provided in the CrPC, but it is equally so that investigations are to be completed in reasonable time. (Para 17) Article 21 would be impacted would be a situation where no reason justifiable in nature, can be understood from record for the investigation having taken a large amount of time. The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence. (Para 19) Directions issued: The ‘leave of the court’ to file a supplementary chargesheet, is a part of Section 173(8) CrPC- The Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission. Since the further investigation is being made with the leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the court must perform- If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first information report and the culminating chargesheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished-If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered. (Para 21)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 197-The avowed object of sanctions being granted before cognizance is to ensure that the threat of criminal prosecution does not hang over the heads of the officials in discharge of their public duty. At the same time, it is not intended to protect officers who have transgressed the boundaries of their duty for some act/benefit which otherwise would not be termed acceptable. An aspect connected with this object, is that the authority granting sanction does not do so mechanically. This is a layer of protection envisioned by this Section. In other words, when allegations are made, it is not for the authorities to grant sanction simply on the basis of the allegations but it is also that they should examine the materials placed by the investigating agency and come to a prima facie satisfaction thereon, about the officer having some or the other involvement in the alleged offence/crime -The order of granting or refusing sanction must show application of mind If sanction is based on what can at best be described as vague statements such as “on perusal of the documents and evidences mentioned in Case Diary available”, this protection would be obliterated. (Para 12) Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion.(Para 21(iv))
Interpretation of Statutes - When a legislation or a rule does not provide for limitation/time limit for a particular aspect, the same is to be governed by the standard of reasonable time. (Para 8)
Arms Act - 2(g),13(2A) - Calling for a police verification report is mandatory and the same is to be sent to the licensing authority within a prescribed time. (Para 7)
Case Info
- Case name: Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1339.
- Coram: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
- Judgment date: November 20, 2025.
Caselaws and citations
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
- Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695.
- Collector v. P. Mangamma, (2003) 4 SCC 488.
- State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497.
- Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 532.
- Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum, (2018) 7 SCC 346.
- Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta, (2025) 5 SCC 481.
- Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87.
- P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704.
- Mansukhlal Vitthaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622.
- Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225.
- P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578.
- Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351.
- CBI v. Mir Usman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2066.
- Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762.
- Rampal Gautam v. The State, Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) 7968 of 2016.
Statutes/laws referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 197, 173(8), 482; and references to historical CrPC (1861, 1872, 1898).
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 187, 193, 230, 250, 251, 262, 263; and Section 528 (parallel to CrPC 482) noted.
- Arms Act, 1959: Sections 13(2), 13(2A), 14, 30.
- Arms Rules, 1962: Rules 51, 51-A, 52, 53.
- Constitution of India: Article 21 (right to speedy trial).
- Comparative constitutions discussed for context: US Sixth Amendment; Canadian Charter s.11(a),(b); South African Constitution s.35(3)(d).


#SupremeCourt issues important directions on filing of supplementary chargesheet :
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 20, 2025
✅The ‘leave of the court’ to file a supplementary chargesheet, is a part of Section 173(8) CrPC- Thus Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission.
✅If the Court finds… https://t.co/M9QFU63wTF pic.twitter.com/Xm6OJFPfz8
The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence. #SupremeCourtofIndia https://t.co/M9QFU63wTF pic.twitter.com/q81X1Le7W5
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 20, 2025