Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17479 of 2025)
Decided On : 04-06-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Charge-sheet – Prolonged delay in filing of charge-sheet is a matter of serious concern.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471 and 114 – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Prolonged delay in filing of charge-sheet – Nearly two decades have passed since initiation of complaint by original complainant – However, it is a matter of serious concern that despite lapse of such inordinate period of time investigation is yet to reach any meaningful conclusion – Original complainant had run from pillar to post, for filing of charge-sheet in connection with his complaint, but to no avail – It is incumbent upon Constitutional Courts to not remain mute spectators, when such prolonged investigations are brought to its notice – In such peculiar circumstances, High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene in present matter – In interest of justice, State of Gujarat directed to conclude investigation within a period of six weeks. (Paras 12, 12 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from impugned order dated 26.06.2025 in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024 passed by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby writ petition preferred by predecessor of appellants praying for a direction to respondent no. 6 to file charge-sheet in their criminal complaint dated 14.09.2007, came to be dismissed.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Directions issued.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that "justice delayed is justice denied" and condemns nearly two decades of inordinate delay in investigation (!) (!) . - It directs the State of Gujarat and Bhiloda Police to conclude the investigation within six weeks and file a report with the JMFC detailing investigative material and any lack thereof (!) . - It requires the State to file an affidavit addressing: (a) action against the officer involved and stage of action; (b) why JMFC was not informed about inability to reconstruct records; (c) compliance with the direction to conclude investigation (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment notes that investigations should be concluded in reasonable time and that delays undermine the criminal justice system and bonafide complaints (!) (!) (!) . - It recognizes the right to speedy investigation as linked to Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for accountability in investigation timelines (!) (!) . - It records that missing case records during investigation severely impact the process and necessitate serious action and intervention (!) (!) . - It directs the list of further proceedings and hearing dates, signaling ongoing judicial oversight (!) .
What is the remedy when there is an inordinate delay in filing of charge-sheet and the High Court has not intervened, according to this judgment?
What are the directions issued by the Court to the State of Gujarat and police to address the delay and loss of records in the investigation?
What are the essential rights implicated by delayed investigation, as discussed in this judgment?
ORDER :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. Justice delayed is justice denied. While this proverb has been reiterated by Courts for time immemorial, 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.
3. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby the writ petition preferred by the predecessor of the appellants praying for a direction to respondent no. 6 to file charge-sheet in their criminal complaint dated 14.09.2007, came to be dismissed.
Brief Facts
4. The father of the appellant(s) 1[Hererinafter ‘original complainant’.] instituted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda2[Hereinafter ‘JMFC’.] against respondent no. 1 to 4, under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463,468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter ‘IPC’.]. It was alleged therein that the subject property, being Survey No. 761, Bhiloda Village, was self-acquired by him on 11.12.1975. Subsequently, when he was on Haj pilgrimage from 05.02.2002 to 21.03.2002, the aforesaid accused persons forged his signature and prepared a forged partition deed alongwith a bogus sale deed qua the subject property. On the basis of such forgery, their names were entered into the Revenue Records.
5. On 10.10.2014, the police presented C-Summary before the JMFC which came to be rejected, and further investigation was directed, to be concluded within 60 days. Thereafter, upon consideration of an application filed by the original complainant4[Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 4455 of 2017.] before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad5[Hereinafter ‘High Court’.], on 20.07.2017, the Court directed preparation of the investigation report within six weeks while recording that some of the material collected during the investigation had gone missing from the custody of the concerned Police Station.
6. Consequently, on 29.08.2017, the FSL Report was prepared and forwarded to JMFC on 27.11.2017. In this report, it was stated that the accused persons had prepared forged documents and forged signatures of the complainant. Pursuant thereto, on 27.11.2017, in Summary No.59 of 2017 the JMFC directed the police to take further action and carry out further investigation.
7. Thereafter, on 21.01.2018, an application was filed by the original complainant before the JMFC praying for appropriate orders to the investigating officer as neither the investigation was concluded nor a final report was submitted in the complaint. In the said application, the JMFC directed the investigating officer to specify within a period of 10 days as to whether investigation remains pending or has been concluded.
8. On 14.09.2022, the Addl. Judicial Magistrate Bhiloda, again directed the investigating officer to carry out investigation and file charge sheet in accordance with law. The original complainant was constrained to file another application6[Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024.] before the High Court, praying for directions to the investigating officer to file chargesheet.
9. Vide the impugned order, the High Court refused to issue any such direction and disposed of the application. It was observed that no case is made out for issuance of direction under Article 226 of the Constitution and since the JMFC had already passed an order to similar effect, an appropriate proceeding should have been initiated before the JMFC.
Our View
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, in the considered view of this Court, the High Court ought to have taken note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervened in the matter at hand.
11. The right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Artic
