Case Background
A criminal case, Pakridayal P.S. Case No.121 of 2016, was registered at Pakridayal Police Station in East Champaran district. During investigation, a mobile number 7301639195 was treated as the basis for implicating the petitioner.
The petitioner claimed that this mobile number did not belong to him. He felt that the police had not properly investigated this basic fact, and that because of this, he had been wrongly roped into the case.
Over time, the petitioner sent several written representations to higher police authorities. He approached the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), West Champaran through Memo No. 922/CR dated 27.02.2021. He then wrote to the Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar by letter no. 2279XL dated 10.06.2022, letter no. 2958XL dated 14.07.2022 and letter no. 4523XL dated 20.10.2022. He also raised his grievance before the investigating officer and supervising officers. According to him, no proper investigation followed.
Thereafter, on 11.07.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Motihari, East Champaran. In that application he sought directions for proper investigation in the same police case, specifically regarding whether the mobile number relied upon by the police actually belonged to him or not.
By the time the writ petition was heard in the Patna High Court in January 2026, the application before the Magistrate was still pending without final orders. Feeling aggrieved by this non-disposal and continued lack of clarity on the investigation, the petitioner moved the High Court under its criminal writ jurisdiction.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition was registered as Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1206 of 2024 before the Patna High Court. It came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha on 19.01.2026.
The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the police to make a proper investigation in Pakridayal P.S. Case No.121 of 2016. The focus of his prayer was a very specific point: whether mobile number 7301639195, used as the basis for implicating him, actually belonged to him.
He also requested any other relief the Court might think fit in the circumstances of the case.
Through counsel, the petitioner explained that he had already taken steps within the criminal process. He had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Motihari, East Champaran, seeking similar relief for proper investigation. That application had been pending since 11.07.2023.
He further pointed out that he had approached various senior police officers through multiple representations, but said that no effective action was taken to correct or complete the investigation.
The petitioner’s counsel requested that the High Court dispose of the writ petition in line with an earlier order passed on 14.09.2022 by a Coordinate Bench in Cr.W.J.C. No.1072 of 2018. In that earlier matter, the High Court had reiterated a set of guidelines on fair and timely investigation which were originally issued in a batch of writ petitions led by Cr.W.J.C. No.153 of 2017.
Having heard both sides and “perused the record,” the Court turned to what those earlier guidelines said. It reproduced in detail the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench on 09.09.2022 in Cr.W.J.C. No.153 of 2017 and other connected cases.
Those directions covered multiple aspects:
First, they stated that where investigation is still pending, an aggrieved person may approach the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. That person can file an application with all supporting materials, even by registered post or email, and must also give a copy to the investigating officer.
Second, on receiving such an application, the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police must personally supervise the case within two weeks. Wherever necessary, he should give hearing to the aggrieved person and consider the submissions and materials placed before him.
Third, the senior officer must issue instructions to supervising officers such as the Dy.S.P. and to the investigating officer to complete the investigation from all angles within a reasonable time. The order emphasised that although the Cr.P.C. does not fix a maximum time limit for investigation, this does not permit cases to remain pending for years. Long delay in investigation undermines people’s faith in the police and has led the Supreme Court, in various cases, to quash prosecutions.
Fourth, the guidelines required the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, Station House Officer and investigating officer, when faced with complaints of threat to the informant, his family or witnesses, to record such information in the station diary. They must promptly examine the threat perception and, if genuine, take immediate steps to protect the person under threat. Unjustified delay that leads to serious consequences could itself attract inquiry and action against the concerned officers.
Fifth, the Coordinate Bench dealt with complaints that accused persons in serious cases were not being arrested. It directed that the senior officers and investigating officers must act as per law and Supreme Court judgments, and in case of absconding accused, must take immediate steps to arrest and complete all legal procedures expeditiously.
The most relevant part for the present case was direction (VI). There the High Court had reminded all Magistrates of their powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Coordinate Bench had said that in every case pending before them, Magistrates should, even without a separate application from the informant, monitor the investigation.
The Magistrate is competent to consider whether investigation is being conducted properly and promptly. If the investigating officer is not proceeding expeditiously and is keeping the case pending without reason, and the Magistrate sees this as inaction, the Magistrate can direct the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police to change the investigating officer, to personally supervise the case, and to take other suitable steps under law.
The Coordinate Bench had clarified that while exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate does not himself investigate and does not act as a full supervisory authority. However, he must ensure that investigation is done properly. For this, he can issue such directions as are needed for proper investigation, on a case-to-case basis.
Further, an application by an aggrieved person, served in advance on the Public Prosecutor or A.P.P., seeking directions for proper investigation must be decided within 30 days from the first date of moving the application before the Magistrate. If the Magistrate fails to exercise his power on his own or on such application, the aggrieved person may then approach the High Court.
Direction (VII) added that if the directions given by the Magistrate to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police or investigating officer, in terms of the guidelines, are not followed, this may amount to contempt of the High Court. In such a situation, the Magistrate can inform the High Court, and an aggrieved person may also seek initiation of contempt proceedings.
Finally, direction (VIII) required all stakeholders to follow these directions and directed the Director General of Police, Bihar to issue necessary instructions.
After reproducing these guidelines, the Patna High Court in the present case observed that the trial court had been clearly reminded of its powers by the earlier judgment. If, despite that, the petitioner’s application filed on 11.07.2023 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was still pending, this showed a failure by the trial court to discharge its duty and was contrary to guideline (VI).
On this reasoning, the High Court did not itself enter into the factual question of whether the mobile number in question belonged to the petitioner, or how the investigation should proceed. Instead, it directed the competent Magistrate to act.
Specifically, the Court directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Motihari, East Champaran to dispose of the petitioner’s application dated 11.07.2023 within four weeks from the date a copy of the High Court’s order is received or produced before that court. The Magistrate must pass a “reasoned and speaking order.”
With these directions and observations, the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition. No further relief was granted at this stage.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for anyone who feels that police are not investigating a case properly, whether as an accused, informant or victim.
The Patna High Court has underlined that the first line of remedy lies before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and before senior police officers. The High Court will generally not step in to directly supervise investigation when the Magistrate has not yet used his legal powers.
The judgment shows that Magistrates cannot simply keep applications for proper investigation pending. They are expected to actively monitor pending investigations and to decide such applications promptly, normally within a fixed period as laid down in the earlier guidelines.
For people in Bihar facing delayed or improper investigation, this case reinforces that:
they should file a detailed application before the concerned Magistrate; the Magistrate must decide that application through a reasoned order; and if the Magistrate fails to act, approaching the High Court becomes an option.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the High Court directly order proper investigation in a pending police case when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the same issue is already pending before the Magistrate and has not been decided?
Answer: The High Court chose not to issue direct investigation directions. Instead, relying on earlier guidelines, it directed the concerned Magistrate to decide the pending Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application within four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order.
Issue: What is the responsibility of the Magistrate regarding applications complaining of improper or delayed investigation?
Answer: The Magistrate is reminded of his duty to monitor investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to act when the investigating officer is not proceeding properly or expeditiously, and to dispose of such applications within the timeline indicated in the earlier guidelines.
Cases Cited by the Court
The Court relied on the directions earlier issued by a Coordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.153 of 2017 and analogous cases, order dated 09.09.2022, which also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sakiri Vasu. The present judgment reiterates and applies those guidelines.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1206 of 2024
Case Title: Ravi Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 216
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 19.01.2026
Advocates: Mr. Uday Prakash Shrama, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC-5 for the respondents.
Nature of the Case: Criminal writ petition seeking direction for proper investigation and consideration of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Link to Full Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Cr.W.J.C. No.1206 of 2024
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
