The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over a criminal complaint that has remained under investigation for nearly two decades without the filing of a charge sheet. The Court directed the Gujarat Police to conclude the investigation within six weeks and submit an appropriate report before the competent Magistrate.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri and others against a Gujarat High Court decision that had declined to intervene in the prolonged investigation.
The case originates from a criminal complaint filed in 2007 by the father of the appellants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhiloda, Gujarat. The complaint alleged that certain family members and other accused persons forged his signatures while he was away on a Haj pilgrimage in 2002 and illegally prepared a partition deed and sale deed concerning a property situated in Bhiloda Village.
According to the complaint, the disputed land was self-acquired property purchased in 1975. The complainant alleged that forged documents were used to transfer ownership and mutate revenue records in favour of the accused persons.
The complaint invoked serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, and abetment.
The investigation witnessed repeated delays despite multiple judicial interventions. In 2014, police submitted a C-Summary report seeking closure of the case. However, the Magistrate rejected the report and ordered further investigation.
Subsequently, the Gujarat High Court in 2017 directed the investigating authorities to complete the probe after noting that some of the investigation records had reportedly gone missing from police custody.
A forensic examination conducted thereafter reportedly concluded that the signatures appearing on the disputed documents were not authored by the complainant, indicating possible forgery. Despite this significant development, the investigation continued to remain inconclusive.
Over the years, the complainant repeatedly approached courts seeking directions for completion of the investigation and filing of a charge sheet. Even after directions from the Magistrate, no final report was submitted.
In 2025, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking directions to the investigating officer to file a charge sheet. The High Court observed that the Magistrate had already issued appropriate directions and that the complainant should pursue remedies before the trial court.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought to have taken note of the extraordinary delay and exercised its constitutional jurisdiction.
The Court reiterated that the right to speedy investigation and trial forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
Referring to its recent decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, the Court highlighted that investigations cannot continue indefinitely and must be completed within a reasonable period.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts cannot remain passive spectators when investigations remain pending for years without justification.
During the hearing, the State of Gujarat informed the Court that original case papers and investigation materials had allegedly been misplaced while being transmitted to the Magistrate’s court. The State further submitted that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the concerned officer.
The State argued that the loss of records and inability to trace certain witnesses prevented completion of the investigation.
However, the Supreme Court found the explanation unsatisfactory. The Court noted that even after the High Court ordered reinvestigation in 2017, nearly a decade had passed without any meaningful progress.
The Bench observed that if reconstruction of records was impossible, the investigating agency should at least have informed the Magistrate and filed an appropriate report instead of allowing the matter to remain pending indefinitely.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to complete the investigation within six weeks and place an appropriate report before the JMFC.
The Court also ordered the State Government to file an affidavit detailing: the action taken against the officer responsible for the loss of records; the present status of disciplinary proceedings; reasons for failing to inform the Magistrate about the inability to reconstruct records and trace witnesses; and compliance with the Court’s direction to conclude the investigation.
Case Details
Case Title: SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI & ORS. Versus SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI & ORS.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1544-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO. 17479 OF 2025
Date: 04/06/2026
