Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar

SLP (Crl.) No. 10130 of 2025

SANJAY KAROL and NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

Overview of the case

This case looked into whether the Patna High Court made a mistake by not using its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973. The goal was to cancel the order that started the case against this IAS officer. He had been the District Magistrate and Licensing Authority in Saharsa. The issue involved claims of irregular arms licences issued almost twenty years before. The whole thing started with an FIR back in 2005. There were big procedural problems along the way. Still, the investigation dragged on for years. Findings kept changing. The department cleared him of any wrongdoing. All this raised real concerns about misusing the criminal justice system. It also touched on whether the sanction was legal. Plus, it questioned when public servants should face charges for their administrative choices.

Facts of the case

The trouble began with a circular from the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2004. It told all states to make the arms licence process smoother. They had to add strict checks and hold people accountable. Against that background, police in Saharsa looked into things. They said seven licences went out without proper verification. One even went to someone who supposedly did not live at the address given. They blamed the appellant for it all. At the time, he was the District Magistrate and the main licensing authority under the Arms Act of 1959.

Police filed an FIR in April 2005. It named the appellant and some licence holders. The investigation wrapped up with a chargesheet in July 2005. But then, in April 2006, they added a supplementary chargesheet. That one cleared the appellant completely. It said the claims against him were false. No offence under the Arms Act really happened. Even the complainant did not mind closing the case.

A senior police officer pushed for a reinvestigation. In June 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Saharsa said the law did not allow reinvestigation. But he approved further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. That process stretched out for over ten years. It finally led to a new chargesheet in 2020. By then, fifteen years had gone by since the original events.

Alongside the criminal side, the Bihar Government started disciplinary action. The appellant asked for the key documents to respond properly. In his long explanation, he pointed out several things. He had sent repeated reminders for police verification. But the police report never came within the required time. Under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, he could issue licences anyway if reports were late. Later, he cancelled those licences once he found issues. The 2004 circular from the MHA only applied going forward. It did not work backwards. The General Administration Department went along with his side of the story. They dropped the disciplinary proceedings against him on February 25, 2016.

Even after the department cleared him, the State gave sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC in April 2022. That let the prosecution move ahead. The Chief Judicial Magistrate soon took notice of the 2020 chargesheet. So, the appellant went to the Patna High Court to get it quashed. The High Court said no to that. He took the matter to the Supreme Court next.

Legal questions involved 

The Court had to think about a few main points. First, did the huge delay ruin the prosecution? There was no good reason for the reinvestigation. Plus, the investigation results kept flipping. Second, were the actions part of his official duties? That would mean Section 197 CrPC protected him. Third, did the departmental clearance matter? No one ever misused those licences either. Fourth, did the High Court skip using its powers to stop the process of abuse?

Decision of the court

In its reasoning, the Court noted the appellant’s handling of those administrative matters fit right into his role as District Magistrate. The long delay felt oppressive. It hurt his position badly. Nothing new came up to justify it. They just kept redoing the evaluation. The old closure report carried a lot of weight. So did the departmental clearance. No reports ever showed misuse of the licences. The sanction itself lacked real thought behind it.

The Court decided that keeping the prosecution going would just misuse the legal process. They overturned what the High Court had done. They also cancelled the cognisance order.