Expressing serious concern over an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in completing a criminal investigation, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that constitutional courts must intervene to protect the right to a speedy trial. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal arising from 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 apex court observed that the loss of case records cannot justify keeping an investigation pending indefinitely, and directed the State of Gujarat and the Bhiloda Police Station to conclude the probe within six weeks.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a criminal complaint instituted on September 14, 2007, by the father of the appellants (the original complainant) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Bhiloda. The complaint was registered against respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant asserted that he had self-acquired the subject 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 prepare a bogus partition deed and a fake sale deed, subsequently mutating their names in the Revenue Records.
Over the next several years, the original complainant repeatedly sought progress on his complaint through various judicial interventions:
- On October 10, 2014, the police presented a “C-Summary” report before the JMFC. The magistrate rejected this report and directed a further investigation to be completed within 60 days.
- Following an application by the complainant, the High Court of Gujarat on July 20, 2017, directed the preparation of an investigation report within six weeks, noting that some seized materials had gone missing from police custody.
- On August 29, 2017, a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was prepared, which was forwarded to the JMFC on November 27, 2017. The report stated that the accused had forged the complainant’s signatures and documents.
- Based on this, the JMFC directed the police to take further action and carry out further investigation.
- Due to continuous delay, the complainant filed another application on January 21, 2018, leading the JMFC to order the investigating officer to clarify the status of the probe within 10 days.
- On September 14, 2022, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhiloda, again directed the investigating officer to carry out the investigation and file a charge-sheet.
Despite these multiple judicial directions, no final report was filed. The original complainant subsequently filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat seeking a direction to the police to file the charge-sheet. On June 26, 2025, the High Court dismissed the application, observing that no case was made out under Article 226 of the Constitution as the JMFC had already passed a similar order, meaning the complainant should have initiated appropriate proceedings before the magistrate instead. The appellants, who are the successors of the deceased complainant, then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The State of Gujarat defended the delay by explaining the difficulties encountered during the investigation. The State submitted that the materials seized during the investigation had been sent for an FSL examination, which confirmed that the original complainant’s signatures had been forged. A detailed report and original case papers were subsequently dispatched to the JMFC Court through Bhiloda Police Station via Outward No. 564/15. However, the State claimed that these crucial documents were misplaced in transit and never reached the JMFC.
Following the High Court’s order for a re-investigation on July 20, 2017, the State submitted that the original case papers remained completely untraceable. Although disciplinary proceedings were initiated and action was taken against the concerned officer in accordance with law, the State maintained that the investigation could not be brought to a logical conclusion due to the absence of the original case records and the inability to trace all relevant witnesses.
The Court’s Analysis
Evaluating the facts, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the 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.”
Stressing the gravity of the situation, the Court invoked the classic maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The bench emphasized that “The right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution.” and that timely completion of an investigation is inherent to this right.
The Court referred to its previous ruling in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511) to highlight that criminal procedures have evolved to demand greater judicial oversight and prompt investigations. Drawing from that precedent, the Court observed:
“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 further cited the following observations on 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.”
“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.”
Regarding the duty of the courts when faced with extensive delays, 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.”
Addressing the limits of ongoing probes, the bench noted:
“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.”
The bench pointed out that nearly a decade had passed since the High Court ordered a re-investigation. It held that even if the police could not trace witnesses, they should have filed an appropriate report seeking closure before the JMFC rather than letting the investigation remain pending indefinitely.
Expressing serious concern over the lost records, the Court observed:
“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.”
Consequently, the Court concluded that “it is incumbent upon constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators, when such prolonged investigations are brought to its notice.” and that the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene.
The 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 a period of six weeks and file an appropriate report with the JMFC containing all investigative materials, or the lack thereof.
Furthermore, the Court directed the State of Gujarat to file an affidavit indicating:
- The specific action taken against the officer involved, the current stage 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 track witnesses, despite the magistrate’s clear directions to conclude the investigation; and
- 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.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 17479 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: June 4, 2026
