Divorce Lawyer Specialist In Noida – Family, Matrimonial & Divorce Expert (Mutual & Contested Divorce) – Advocate AK Tiwari
November 20, 2025
PARTNERS NOT SEPARATE FROM FIRM; LIABILITY IS JOINT & SEVERAL – NI ACT CASE AGAINST ‘SLEEPING PARTNERS’ CAN’T BE QUASHED – HC SB ALLAHABAD
November 24, 2025DIRECTIONS ISSUED – COURT IS BOUND TO SEEK EXPLANATION FROM INVESTIGATING AGENCY IF THERE IS LARGE GAP BETWEEN FIR & CHARGESHEET – SC
Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court judgment concerns an appeal filed by Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu, an IAS officer of the Bihar cadre, challenging the Patna High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings pending against him. These proceedings arose from allegations of irregular issuance of arms licences during his tenure as District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority, Saharsa (2002–2005). The matter, originating from a 2005 FIR, had lingered for nearly two decades before reaching the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
In 2004, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued directions to streamline arms licence procedures, citing large-scale irregularities in some states. While collecting information pursuant to these directions, an ASI discovered that arms licences had been issued to several individuals without proper verification. Seven such cases formed the basis of an FIR registered on 24 April 2005, alleging that licences were issued to unverified or fictitious persons, some physically unfit, and hinting at conspiracy involving the District Magistrate (the appellant)
Investigation initially led to a chargesheet in 2005 implicating one co-accused, while a 2006 supplementary chargesheet absolved the appellant, terming the allegations against him “false,” a conclusion accepted by the complainant. However, police later sought permission for re-investigation, claiming fresh discrepancies. In 2009, the Magistrate allowed only further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Despite this, the next chargesheet naming the appellant was filed only in 2020, 11 years after further investigation was permitted.
Meanwhile, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant in 2015 regarding 16 licences. He submitted a detailed reply explaining that under Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act, the District Magistrate could issue licences even without police verification if the report was not furnished in time. He also stated that licences had later been revoked when irregularities surfaced. The Government of Bihar accepted his explanation and dropped the proceedings in 2016
High Court Judgment
The High Court rejected the appellant’s plea under Section 482 CrPC, holding that prima facie irregularities existed and the appellant had acted arbitrarily. It relied on instances where licences were issued within days of calling for police reports or to persons allegedly unfit. The High Court also noted that departmental discharge did not amount to exoneration.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined two major issues:
1. Invalidity of Sanction under Section 197 CrPC
The Court held that the sanction order (2022) was mechanical, vague, and lacked application of mind. It merely recited statutory language without demonstrating that the sanctioning authority considered evidence objectively. Such a defective sanction violates established principles requiring genuine independent satisfaction. Accordingly, the sanction was declared bad in law and set aside.
2. Inordinate Delay Violating Article 21
The Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial, referring to earlier landmark judgments. It found the 15-year delay in filing chargesheet—despite earlier closure in 2006—unexplained and wholly unjustified. Even after cognizance was taken in 2022, no progress occurred. Such delay severely prejudiced the appellant and undermined fairness.
Conclusion
Because the sanction was invalid and delay extreme, the Supreme Court quashed the cognizance order and all proceedings against the appellant, allowing the appeal.
