SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI & ORS.versusSAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI & ORS.

                  [2026] 7 S.C.R. 67 : 2026 INSC 626

                  Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors.
                                 v.
               Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3058 of 2026)
                                04 June 2026
           [Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the
       investigation of the criminal complaint.

                                  Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Arts.136, 226, 14 – Inordinate delay in
       the investigation of the criminal complaint – Complaint by
       the father of the appellants-original complainant, in the year
       2007, before the Judicial Magistrate against respondents 1 to 4
       u/ss.120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 IPC alleging that
       while he was away on Haj pilgrimage, the accused persons
       forged his signatures and prepared bogus partition deed and
       fake sale deed, mutated their names in the Revenue Records –
       Applications by the original complainant seeking directions
       to the investigating officer to file chargesheet – Thereafter,
       writ petition praying for a direction to respondent no. 6 to file
       charge-sheet in their criminal complaint – High Court refused
       to issue any such direction – Correctness:
       Held: High Court ought to have taken note of the inordinate delay
       of nearly two decades in filing of the chargesheet and intervened
       in the matter – However, matter of serious concern is that despite
       the lapse of such an inordinate period of time the investigation
       is yet to reach any meaningful conclusion – It is incumbent upon
       constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators, when such
       prolonged investigations are brought to its notice – Thus, in such
       peculiar circumstances, the High Court ought to have exercised
       its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene – State submitted that
       detailed report, along with original case papers, during transit to
       the Magistrate, were misplaced and was never received by the
       Magistrate, and thereafter, re-investigation was ordered by the

* Author
68                                                               [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      High Court – During re-investigation, original case papers remained
      untraceable – Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
      officer concerned and appropriate action was taken – 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 – Upon consideration of
      the stand of the State, it is found 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 Magistrate – No
      reason, as to why the complaint and investigation have remained
      pending till date – Moreover, incidents wherein case records are
      lost during an active investigation, have to be taken with utmost
      seriousness – Such incidents strike at the very core of the criminal
      justice system, rendering bonafide complaints inactionable – Thus,
      in the interest of justice, the State of Gujarat and Police Station
      to conclude investigation within the stipulated period and file an
      appropriate report with the Magistrate containing all investigative
      material and if so, the lack thereof. [Paras10-18]

                                Case Law Cited
      Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC
      OnLine SC 2511 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
      Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.

                               List of Keywords
      Inordinate delay of two decades in the investigation of the criminal
      complaint; Haj pilgrimage; Forging of signatures; Preparation
      of bogus partition deed and fake sale deed; Directions to the
      investigating officer to file chargesheet.

                              Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      3058 of 2026
      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2025 of the High Court
      of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCRA(D) No. 2029 of 2024
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                            69

                           Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. v.
                          Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors.

                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Ms. Aastha Mehta, Satyam Chhayya, Ms. Prerana Mohapatra,
       Ms. Prina Sharma, Anshuman Srivastava.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Mehmood Umar Faruqui, Aman Rawat, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
       Ms. Neha Singh.

                          Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                            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 instituted a complaint before the
       Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda2 against respondent no. 1 to 4,
       under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463,468, 471, and 114 of the Indian
       Penal Code, 18603. It was alleged therein that the subject property,
       being Survey No. 761, Bhiloda Village, was self-acquired by him


1    Hererinafter ‘original complainant’.
2    Hereinafter ‘JMFC’.
3    Hereinafter ‘IPC’.
70                                                                [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       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 before the High Court of
       Gujarat at Ahmedabad5, 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 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


4     Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 4455 of 2017.
5     Hereinafter ‘High Court’.
6     Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024.
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                               71

                      Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. v.
                     Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors.

      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 Article 21 of the
    Constitution. On this aspect, we advert to the observations of this
    Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar7:
             “14. 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.
             15. 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.
                       ...              ...                   ...
             17. 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.
                       ...              ...                   ...


7   2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511.
72                                                           [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                    Supreme Court Reports


      21. Before parting with this matter, we deem it fit to issue
      the following directions:
              ...                ...                    ...

           ii) 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 direction above does not come based on
           this case alone. This Court has noticed on many
           unfortunate occasions that there is massive delay
           in filing chargesheet/taking cognizance etc. This
           Court has time and again, in its pronouncements
           underscored the necessity of speedy investigation
           and trial as being important for the accused, victim
           and the society. However, for a variety of reasons
           there is still a lag in the translation of this recognition
           into a reality.
           (iii) 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
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                           73

                     Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. v.
                    Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors.

                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.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

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.
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.
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.
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.
74                                                             [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


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.
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.

      Result of the case: Listed for further hearing.




      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain