The Delhi High Court has quashed a prosecution under the Delhi Excise Act because the police took nearly eight years to file the chargesheet. It held that the delay, for which the investigating agency offered no acceptable explanation, violated the accused's fundamental right to a speedy investigation and trial.

Justice Arun Bhardwaj decided Jaiveer Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 2660/2023, on 5 October 2026.

A chargesheet that took nearly eight years

The FIR (No. 10/2015, P.S. Jaffarpur Kalan) was registered on 9 January 2015 under Sections 33 and 38 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. The chargesheet was prepared by a head constable and forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 4 May 2018. It reached the trial court only in November 2022.

On 20 December 2022 the trial court held that taking cognizance was not barred by limitation, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Amrit Lal v. Shantilal Soni (2022). The petitioner then approached the High Court. He argued that the offences carried a maximum of three years' imprisonment, so the limitation period under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was three years. He also argued that the delay itself was unexplained.

The police's status report said that departmental action had been started against the head constable responsible for the delay.

Speedy investigation is part of Article 21

The Court did not rest its decision on limitation. It began from Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), which held that a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21. It then relied on the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, which extends that protection to investigation. An investigation cannot be allowed to drag on endlessly, and a High Court may step in where the delay is unduly long and not adequately justified.

There is no fixed deadline for completing an investigation, the Court noted. Each case has to be judged on its own facts, and investigations must be finished within a reasonable time.

The delay was within the police's control

Applying that test, the Court found that nothing beyond the investigating agency's control explained the eight-year gap. Disciplinary proceedings against the head constable did not justify the delay, and they offered nothing to the accused, whose case had been hanging over him throughout. The Court held that the inordinate delay had violated the petitioner's rights under Article 21, and quashed the proceedings in Case No. 13375/2022.

Why it matters

Old FIRs in which a chargesheet surfaces years later are common in Delhi's magisterial courts, particularly in minor excise, gambling and licensing cases. The ruling gives the accused in those cases a remedy that does not depend on the arithmetic of limitation under Section 468 CrPC (now Section 514 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Where the police cannot explain a long gap, the delay itself can be a ground to quash under Section 528 BNSS. Departmental action against the officer at fault is not a substitute.