Appeal against the prayer dismissal of direction to the respondent.6 to file chargesheet
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.
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.
Complaint filed two decades ago
12. In the present factual matrix, nearly two decades have passed since the initiation of the complaint by the original complainant. However, it is a matter of serious concern that despite the lapse of such an inordinate period of time the investigation is yet to reach any meaningful conclusion. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the original complainant had run from pillar to post, for filing of a chargesheet in connection with his complaint, but to no avail.
Constitutional courts not to remain mute spectators when prolonged investigations are brought to its notice and should involve its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene
13. This Court is of the view that it is incumbent upon constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators, when such prolonged investigations are brought to its notice. Therefore, in such peculiar circumstances, the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene in the present matter.
Re-investigation was ordered by High Court of Gujarat in the year 2017
14. At this stage, it becomes appropriate to consider the stand put forth by the State of Gujarat. It has been submitted that the materials seized during the course of investigation were sent for FSL examination, wherein it was opined that the original complainant had not authored the signatures on the forged documents. A detailed report, along with original case papers, was sent to the JMFC Court through Police Station Bhiloda, via Outward No. 564/15. However, during transit, the said material is stated to have been misplaced and was never received by the JMFC. Thereafter, re-investigation was ordered by the High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 20.07.2017.
Original case papers are untraceable and hence unable to carry out the investigation to its logical conclusion
15. It has been submitted that during re-investigation, the original case papers remained untraceable. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the officer concerned and appropriate action was taken in accordance with law. The stand of the State is that in the absence of the original case records and inability to conclusively trace all relevant witnesses, the investigation could not be carried out to its logical conclusion.
No reason as to why the complaint and investigation have remained pending till date
16. Upon consideration of the stand of the State, we find that from the order of the High Court ordering re-investigation, nearly a decade has passed. Even in the case that during the investigation the police were not able to trace the relevant witnesses, ordinarily an appropriate report seeking closure should have been filed before the JMFC. We find no reason from the record, as to why the complaint and investigation have remained pending till date.
17. Moreover, we are of the view that 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.
Direction to conclude the investigation
18. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda, to conclude investigation within a period of six weeks from today and file an appropriate report with the JMFC containing all investigative material and if so, the lack thereof. Furthermore, the State of Gujarat to file an affidavit indicating:
a. Specific action taken against the officer involved, the stage of such action and whether taken to its logical conclusion;
b. Despite directions of the JMFC to conclude further investigation after the loss of records, why was the JMFC not informed of the inability to reconstruct records and track witnesses etc.; and c. Compliance with direction to conclude investigation.
19. List on 14.07.2026 at 2.00 P.M. as part heard.
Party
Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. versus Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors - Criminal Appeal No. 3058/2026 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 17479 of 2025) - 2026 INSC 626 - June 4, 2026 - Hon’ble Mr. Justices Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Augustine George Masih.
