1 CGHC010276732026 2026:CGHC:31390-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 411 of 2026 Ganapathi Ravi Raja S/o Shri Kollappa Ganapathi Achari Aged About 51 Years R/o Plot No. 143, Maritri Kunj, Risali, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Durg (C.G.) 3 - Officer-In-Charge Of Police Station Bhilai Nagar District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Shivali Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 23.07.2026 1. Heard Ms.Shivali Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.24 10:38:26 +0530 2 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner case for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus thereby directing the investigating agency to conclude the investigation in Crime No. 56/2024 registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg. for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 24.01.2024 and file the final report within stipulated time period. 10.3 Any other relief this Hon'ble court may also be passed as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts of case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation in the present case has remained pending for an inordinately long period without any valid or justifiable reason. It is contended that such an indefinite continuation of the investigation is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and defeats the very object of a fair, prompt and effective investigation. It is further submitted that the unexplained delay in concluding the investigation causes serious prejudice to the petitioner, who is entitled to certainty regarding his legal status, and also frustrates the administration of criminal justice. According to learned counsel, keeping the investigation pending for an indefinite period amounts to an arbitrary exercise of statutory power and violates 3 the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Agency is under a statutory obligation to conduct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation and to submit its final report before the competent Court within a reasonable time. Despite the petitioner's full cooperation throughout the investigation, the Investigating Agency has failed to conclude the proceedings, and the delay is wholly attributable to the investigating authorities. It is lastly submitted that the complainant made false and misleading averments before the learned Magistrate, on the basis of which an order for registration of the FIR came to be passed. According to the petitioner, the said order was procured by suppressing material facts and by practising fraud upon the Court. It is contended that once the investigation has substantially been completed, the Investigating Agency ought to be directed to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion by submitting the appropriate report before the competent Court, instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the investigation is being conducted strictly in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioner is an accused in the present case and has neither produced nor filed any document to demonstrate that he has been granted bail. It is 4 further submitted that the petitioner has not sought the quashing of the FIR in the present writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended to the writ petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner is an accused in the present case. No document has been brought on record by the petitioner to establish that he has been granted bail. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not sought the quashing of the FIR in the present writ petition. The State has categorically submitted that the investigation is being conducted strictly in accordance with law. In the absence of any material to indicate that the investigation is being conducted in an arbitrary or illegal manner, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the ongoing investigation in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we direct the Investigating Officer-respondent No. 3 to conclude the investigation and submit the police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (now Section 193(3) of the BNSS), if not already submitted, before the jurisdictional Magistrate expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 7. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy this order to the investigating officer within a period of one week from today. 5 8. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu