The Supreme Court held that loss of case records cannot justify keeping a criminal investigation pending indefinitely, expressing concern over a nearly two-decade delay. Setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s order, it directed Gujarat Police to complete the investigation within six weeks to protect the right to a speedy trial.
Expressing profound concern over an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in concluding a criminal investigation, the Supreme Court of India has held that constitutional courts must step in to safeguard the right to a speedy trial. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih entertained an appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to direct the police to file a charge-sheet in a criminal complaint pending since 2007.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court observed that the loss of case records cannot be used as a reason to keep an investigation pending indefinitely. It accordingly directed the State of Gujarat and the Bhiloda Police Station to conclude the probe within six weeks.
Background of the Case
The matter traces its origin to a criminal complaint filed on September 14, 2007 by the father of the appellants (the original complainant) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhiloda. The complaint was lodged against respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The complainant claimed that he had self-acquired the property Survey No. 761 in Bhiloda Village on December 11, 1975. He alleged that while he was away on a Haj pilgrimage from February 5, 2002 to March 21, 2002, the accused persons forged his signatures to create a bogus partition deed and a fabricated sale deed, which were then used to mutate their names in the revenue records.
Over the years, the original complainant repeatedly sought directions for progress through multiple judicial interventions, as follows:
- On October 10, 2014, the police submitted a “C-Summary” report before the JMFC. The magistrate rejected it and ordered further investigation to be completed within 60 days.
- Following an application by the complainant, on July 20, 2017, the Gujarat High Court directed preparation of an investigation report within six weeks, while noting that certain seized materials were missing from police custody.
- On August 29, 2017, an FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was prepared and forwarded to the JMFC on November 27, 2017, stating that the accused had forged the complainant’s signatures and related documents. The JMFC then directed the police to take further steps and conduct additional investigation.
- Due to continued delay, on January 21, 2018, the complainant moved again, leading the JMFC to direct the investigating officer to clarify the status of the probe within 10 days.
- On September 14, 2022, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhiloda again ordered the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file a charge-sheet.
Despite these directions, no final report was filed.
The original complainant then filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the police to file the charge-sheet. On June 26, 2025, the High Court dismissed the application. It held that no ground was made out under Article 226 because the JMFC had already passed a similar order therefore, according to the High Court, the complainant ought to have pursued the appropriate remedy before the magistrate. The appellants being the successors of the deceased complainant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
State of Gujarat
The State justified the delay by citing difficulties encountered during investigation. It submitted that:
- seized materials were sent for FSL examination, which reportedly confirmed that the complainant’s signatures were forged;
- a detailed report and the original case papers were dispatched to the JMFC via the Bhiloda Police Station through Outward No. 564/15;
- however, the State claimed the documents were misplaced in transit and never reached the JMFC;
- after the High Court’s order for reinvestigation on July 20, 2017, the State maintained that the original case records remained entirely untraceable;
- although disciplinary proceedings were initiated and action was taken against the concerned officer as per law, the State submitted that the investigation could not reach a logical conclusion due to the absence of original case records and the inability to trace all relevant witnesses.
Appellants/Complainant-side
The appellants contended that despite repeated judicial directions, the investigation remained pending for an extraordinarily long period, causing prejudice and violating the right to a speedy trial.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
After reviewing the facts, the Supreme Court strongly criticized both the prolonged delay and the High Court’s refusal to intervene. The Court noted:
“the case at hand is an unfortunate occasion where despite repeatedly knocking the doors of the Courts below, there has been an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of the criminal complaint, which compels interference by this Court.”
Emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, the Court invoked the maxim:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
The bench further stressed that:
“The right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution.”
It also held that timely completion of investigation is inherent to this constitutional guarantee. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511), observing that criminal procedure now demands greater judicial oversight and more prompt investigative action. Based on that precedent, the Court stated:
“Various judgments of this Court have emphasised the right to speedy trial as being an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Timely completion of investigation is inherent thereto.”
The Court additionally referred to the following observations regarding prompt investigation:
“Moving further, it is to be noted that this aspect of prompt investigation has received statutory recognition as well in the CrPC, which of course, is the comprehensive code laying down detailed procedure is for stages of investigation, trial and appeal among other things. It must be stated that statutory recognition of prompt investigation is a pre-constitutional stipulation.”
It Said,
“The inescapable conclusion arrived at from the above discussion in the Indian context, is that there has been an evolution in legislative wisdom over the years and the criminal procedure have moved from a period of no timelines and minimal judicial interventions/oversight to progressively more oversight and recognition of the need to conclude investigations in time. It may be true that no strict timelines are provided in the CrPC, but it is equally so that investigations are to be completed in reasonable time.”
On the duty of courts when confronted with significant gaps between FIR and charge-sheet, the Court quoted:
“Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal law. They form the bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the justice system. If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first information report and the culminating chargesheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished.”
The bench also discussed the limits of indefinitely continuing investigations and held:
“While it is well acknowledged and recognised that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgement, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time, certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered.”
ALSO READ: Tragic Mystery || Law Clerk’s Body Discovered Near Technician Studio
The Court noted that nearly a decade had passed since the High Court directed reinvestigation. It concluded that even if witnesses could not be traced, the police ought to have filed an appropriate report seeking closure before the JMFC, instead of allowing the investigation to remain in limbo for an indefinite period.
The Court expressed serious concern regarding the missing records, observing:
“incidents such as this, wherein case records are lost during an active investigation, have to be taken with utmost seriousness. Moreover, such incidents strike at the very core of the criminal justice system, rendering bonafide complaints inactionable.”
It then concluded that:
“it is incumbent upon constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators, when such prolonged investigations are brought to its notice.”
and held that the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted leave, and set aside the High Court’s order. It directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation within six weeks and file an appropriate report before the JMFC containing all investigative materials or clearly stating what materials are not available. It further directed the State to file an affidavit indicating:
- the specific action taken against the officer involved, the current status of such action, and whether it has been taken to its logical conclusion;
- why the JMFC was not informed of the inability to reconstruct records and trace witnesses, despite the magistrate’s clear directions to conclude the investigation;
- compliance with the direction to conclude the investigation.
The case has been listed for further hearing on July 14, 2026, at 2:00 P.M., as a part-heard matter.
Case Title: Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors. SLP (Crl.) No. 17479 of 2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE