Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri and Othersv.Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri and Others

Legal Analysis: Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri and Others v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 626

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Decision: June 4, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17479 of 2025 against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 26th June 2025 in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The father of the appellants filed a criminal complaint in 2007 alleging forgery of his signature and preparation of false documents in respect of his self‑acquired property. Despite repeated directions from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the High Court over nearly two decades, the investigation remained incomplete. The original complainant moved the High Court seeking a direction to file a charge‑sheet. The High Court refused to intervene, observing that the JMFC had already passed orders and that appropriate proceedings should be initiated before the JMFC. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is intrinsically linked to timely completion of investigation. The Court noted that nearly two decades had passed without any meaningful conclusion of the investigation, and that the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation within six weeks and file an appropriate report before the JMFC. The State was also directed to file an affidavit regarding disciplinary action against the erring officer and compliance with the directions.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri and Others v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 626

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17479 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Decision: June 4, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Order dated 26th June 2025 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024, dismissing the writ petition seeking direction to file charge‑sheet.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to speedy trial – includes timely completion of investigation), Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts).

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 (inherent powers of High Court – corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 (inherent powers to quash proceedings or issue directions).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 463, 468, 471 (forgery and using forged documents as genuine), 114 (abettor present when offence committed).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Robert Lachungnuga Chongthu v. State of Bihar – Right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21; timely completion of investigation is inherent thereto; reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of criminal law; courts must seek explanation from investigating agency if there is a large gap between FIR and charge‑sheet; if investigation continues for an unduly long period without justification, the accused or complainant may approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC.

3. Relevant Facts

The father of the appellants (original complainant) instituted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhiloda on 14th September 2007 against respondents No. 1 to 4 under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471 and 114 IPC. It was alleged that the subject property (Survey No. 761, Bhiloda Village) was self‑acquired by the complainant on 11th December 1975. When he was on Haj pilgrimage from 5th February 2002 to 21st March 2002, the accused persons forged his signature and prepared forged documents.

On 10th October 2014, the police presented a C‑Summary before the JMFC, which was rejected, and further investigation was directed to be concluded within 60 days. On 20th July 2017, the High Court of Gujarat directed preparation of an investigation report within six weeks, noting that some material collected during investigation had gone missing from the police station’s custody.

On 29th August 2017, the FSL Report was prepared and forwarded to the JMFC on 27th November 2017. The FSL Report opined that the accused persons had prepared forged documents and forged signatures of the complainant. On 27th November 2017, the JMFC directed the police to take further action and carry out further investigation.

On 21st January 2018, the complainant filed an application before the JMFC seeking orders to the investigating officer, as neither investigation was concluded nor a final report submitted. The JMFC directed the investigating officer to specify within 10 days whether the investigation remained pending or had been concluded.

On 14th September 2022, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhiloda again directed the investigating officer to carry out investigation and file a charge‑sheet. The complainant then approached the High Court seeking directions to the investigating officer to file charge‑sheet. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 26th June 2025, observing that no case was made out for issuance of a direction under Article 226 and that since the JMFC had already passed orders to similar effect, appropriate proceedings should have been initiated before the JMFC.

The State of Gujarat submitted that the materials seized during investigation were sent for FSL examination, but during transit the material was misplaced and never received by the JMFC. Re‑investigation was ordered by the High Court in 2017. During re‑investigation, the original case papers remained untraceable, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned officer. The State submitted that in the absence of original case records and witnesses who had become untraceable, the investigation could not be completed.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the investigation into a criminal complaint had remained pending for nearly two decades without any meaningful conclusion.

Issue No. 2: What is the obligation of constitutional courts when faced with inordinate delay in completion of investigation, especially when case records are lost and witnesses become untraceable.

Issue No. 3: What directions are required to ensure timely conclusion of the investigation and accountability of the erring officers.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The right to speedy trial includes timely completion of investigation (Paras 10-11).

The Court held that the right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution. Timely completion of investigation is inherent thereto. Citing Robert Lachungnuga Chongthu, the Court observed that if the court finds or the accused alleges (with proof) that there is a large gap between the FIR and the culminating charge‑sheet, the court is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself as to the propriety of the explanation. Investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is entitled to certainty about the charges against him within a reasonable time.

B. Constitutional courts cannot remain mute spectators to prolonged investigations (Para 13).

The Court held that it is incumbent upon constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators when prolonged investigations are brought to their notice. In the present case, nearly two decades had passed since the initiation of the complaint, yet the investigation had not reached any meaningful conclusion. The original complainant had run from pillar to post seeking filing of a charge‑sheet, but to no avail. The High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene.

C. Loss of case records during investigation is a serious matter (Para 17).

The Court observed that incidents where case records are lost during an active investigation must be taken with utmost seriousness. Such incidents strike at the very core of the criminal justice system, rendering bona fide complaints inactionable. The State’s explanation that case records were lost and witnesses had become untraceable was not sufficient to justify the inordinate delay.

D. Directions issued for expeditious conclusion of investigation and accountability (Paras 18-19).

The Court directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation within six weeks from the date of the order and file an appropriate report (including all investigative material or lack thereof) before the JMFC. The State was further directed to file an affidavit indicating: (i) specific action taken against the erring officer and whether it was taken to its logical conclusion; (ii) why the JMFC was not informed of the inability to reconstruct records and track witnesses despite directions to conclude further investigation; and (iii) compliance with the direction to conclude investigation.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The right to speedy trial under Article 21 imposes an obligation on investigating agencies to complete investigation within a reasonable time. Unexplained delay of nearly two decades in filing a charge‑sheet, despite repeated judicial directions, is a violation of this right.

• Constitutional courts under Article 226 have a duty to intervene when a criminal investigation remains pending for an inordinately long period without any meaningful progress, especially when the complainant has exhausted remedies before the magistrate.

• Loss of case records during investigation is not a sufficient justification for indefinite delay; the State must take prompt steps to reconstruct records, and erring officers must face disciplinary action. Failure to inform the court about the inability to complete investigation is a serious lapse.

• The High Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction merely because the magistrate has passed similar orders, if those orders have not resulted in any effective action and the matter has been pending for an unreasonably long time.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first noted that the father of the appellants had filed a complaint in 2007. The police presented a C‑Summary in 2014, which was rejected. The JMFC directed further investigation. The High Court in 2017 directed preparation of an investigation report within six weeks, noting that material had gone missing from the police station. The FSL Report in 2017 opined in favour of the complainant. The JMFC again directed further investigation on 27th November 2017 and subsequently on 14th September 2022. Despite all these directions, no charge‑sheet was filed.

The Court examined the stand of the State of Gujarat. The State submitted that the case records were lost during transit and that witnesses had become untraceable, making completion of investigation difficult. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned officer. The Court found that from the High Court’s order ordering re‑investigation (2017), nearly a decade had passed. Even if the police could not trace witnesses, an appropriate report seeking closure should have been filed before the JMFC. There was no justification for the complaint and investigation to remain pending till date.

The Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to intervene. The proverb “Justice delayed is justice denied” was squarely applicable. The original complainant had repeatedly knocked the doors of the courts below, but there was an inordinate delay of nearly two decades. The High Court ought to have taken note of this and exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court set aside the impugned order and issued directions for expeditious conclusion of the investigation within six weeks, along with an affidavit from the State regarding disciplinary action and compliance.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a strong reiteration of the right to speedy trial under Article 21. It correctly holds that constitutional courts cannot remain passive when investigations drag on for decades without any meaningful conclusion. The Court’s direction to the State to file an affidavit regarding disciplinary action against the erring officer is an important accountability measure. The judgment also emphasises that loss of case records is not a perpetual excuse; if records are lost, the State must reconstruct them or file an appropriate closure report.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly quash the proceedings or grant any relief to the accused. It only directs completion of investigation. The accused may still face prosecution after nearly two decades, which itself raises issues of fairness (loss of evidence, fading memories). However, the Court was dealing with the complainant’s appeal, and the accused did not seek quashing. The directions are limited to completing the investigation.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where criminal investigations are pending for an unreasonably long time, especially when the complainant is seeking a direction to file a charge‑sheet. It reinforces that the High Court cannot refuse to intervene merely because the magistrate has issued similar orders, if those orders have not resulted in effective action. It also places an obligation on the State to explain delays and take disciplinary action against negligent officers.

9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 given the inordinate delay of nearly two decades.

• The State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda were directed to conclude the investigation within six weeks from the date of the order and file an appropriate report (containing all investigative material or stating the lack thereof) before the JMFC.

• The State of Gujarat was directed to file an affidavit indicating:
  (a) specific action taken against the officer involved, the stage of such action, and whether it has been taken to its logical conclusion;
  (b) why, despite directions of the JMFC to conclude further investigation after the loss of records, the JMFC was not informed of the inability to reconstruct records and track witnesses;
  (c) compliance with the direction to conclude investigation.

• The matter was listed on 14th July 2026 at 2.00 P.M. as part‑heard.

10. Practical Application

For a complainant whose criminal complaint is pending investigation for an unreasonably long period: Approach the magistrate first with an application seeking directions to the investigating officer. If the magistrate’s orders are not complied with, approach the High Court under Article 226. Cite this judgment to argue that the High Court cannot refuse to intervene merely because the magistrate has passed similar orders, especially if those orders have not resulted in effective action. Document the entire timeline: date of complaint, dates of magistrate’s orders, dates of any C‑Summary or closure reports, and the inaction of the police.

For an accused facing a delayed investigation: You have the right to seek quashing of proceedings if the delay is unexplained and prejudicial. Approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) or Article 226. Argue that the prolonged investigation violates your right to a speedy trial under Article 21. However, note that this judgment primarily deals with the complainant’s right to have investigation completed, but it also acknowledges that the accused is entitled to certainty about charges within a reasonable time. If witnesses have become untraceable or evidence has been lost due to the State’s negligence, seek quashing.

For a State government and police department: Establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure that investigations are completed within a reasonable time. If case records are lost, immediately inform the court and take steps to reconstruct them. Do not allow investigations to remain pending for years without filing a final report (charge‑sheet or closure report). If witnesses become untraceable, file a closure report with an explanation. Initiate disciplinary proceedings against erring officers promptly and take them to logical conclusion.

For a magistrate (JMFC): When you direct further investigation, set a specific timeline. If the timeline is not complied with, issue a show‑cause notice to the investigating officer. If non‑compliance persists, inform the Superintendent of Police or the High Court. Do not repeatedly pass orders without ensuring compliance. Use your powers under Section 156(3) CrPC (or corresponding provision in BNSS) to monitor investigation.

For a High Court hearing a writ petition seeking direction to file charge‑sheet: Do not dismiss such petitions on the ground that the magistrate has already passed orders. Examine the chronology. If the magistrate’s orders have remained uncomplied for years, exercise your jurisdiction under Article 226. Direct the investigating agency to complete the investigation within a fixed timeline and file a report. If necessary, seek an explanation from the State and consider directing disciplinary action.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Justice delayed – Para 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.”

Line 2 (Right to speedy trial – Para 11, quoting Robert Chongthu):
“The right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution. Timely completion of investigation is inherent thereto.”

Line 3 (Obligation of constitutional courts – Para 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.”

Line 4 (Loss of records – Para 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.”

Line 5 (Direction for investigation – Para 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.”

Line 6 (Directions for accountability – Para 18):
“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.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a complainant seeking expeditious investigation: File an application before the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC (or corresponding BNSS provision) seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate. If the police file a closure report (C‑Summary), file an objection. If the magistrate orders further investigation but the police do not comply, file a contempt application or a writ petition before the High Court. Document each step with dates and orders. In the High Court, argue that the prolonged investigation violates your right to a fair trial and that the court must exercise its power under Article 226. Cite this judgment to show that the High Court cannot refuse to intervene on the ground that the magistrate has already passed orders.

For an accused facing a stale investigation: If investigation has been pending for years without charge‑sheet, file an application before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) for quashing of the FIR or for a direction to conclude the investigation. Argue that your right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been violated. Cite the delay, the loss of evidence, and the inability to defend yourself due to faded memories. If the State’s explanation is unsatisfactory, seek quashing. However, note that quashing is an extraordinary remedy; the court may instead direct expeditious completion.

For a police officer or investigating agency: Maintain a proper case diary and record of all steps taken. If case records are lost, immediately report to the superior officer and to the court. Take prompt steps to reconstruct records. Do not allow the case to remain pending for years without any progress. If witnesses are untraceable, file a final report (closure report) explaining the situation. Delaying indefinitely will lead to disciplinary action and possible contempt.

For a magistrate monitoring investigation: When you order further investigation under Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) CrPC, set a specific timeline (e.g., 60 days). Require the investigating officer to file periodic status reports. If the timeline expires without compliance, issue a show‑cause notice. If non‑compliance continues, refer the matter to the Superintendent of Police or the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Do not repeatedly adjourn the matter without ensuring action.

For a High Court judge dealing with a writ petition for direction to file charge‑sheet: First, examine the chronology. If the investigation has been pending for an exceptionally long period (e.g., more than 5 years) without charge‑sheet, and the magistrate’s orders have not been complied with, issue a direction to the investigating agency to conclude investigation within a fixed timeline (e.g., 3 months). If the State gives an explanation (e.g., lost records, untraceable witnesses), examine whether the explanation is satisfactory. If the delay is due to negligence, direct disciplinary action. If the investigation cannot be completed due to loss of evidence, consider whether to quash the proceedings or permit a closure report. Do not dismiss the writ petition on technical grounds (e.g., that the petitioner should have approached the magistrate). Your jurisdiction under Article 226 is available to remedy inaction.