Supreme Court Orders Gujarat Police to File Chargesheet in Six Weeks After Nearly Two Decades of Delay

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih faulted the Gujarat High Court for refusing to intervene in a forgery complaint that has remained uninvestigated for nearly twenty years.

The Supreme Court on 4 June 2026 set aside the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to intervene in a criminal complaint filed in 2007 alleging forgery of property documents. The Court found that nearly two decades had passed without a chargesheet being filed, despite repeated orders from the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the High Court itself. Holding that constitutional courts cannot remain mute spectators to such prolonged inaction, the bench directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation and file an appropriate report before the JMFC within six weeks. The Court also required the State to file an affidavit accounting for the loss of case records and the failure to inform the JMFC of the inability to reconstruct them.

The Complaint and the Property Dispute

The original complainant — the father of the present appellants — acquired Survey No. 761, Bhiloda Village on 11 December 1975. When he was on Haj pilgrimage between 5 February 2002 and 21 March 2002, the accused persons allegedly forged his signature and prepared a forged partition deed along with a bogus sale deed over the same property. On the strength of these forged documents, their names were entered into the Revenue Records.

He filed a complaint before the JMFC, Bhiloda against respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint was dated 14 September 2007.

A Sequence of Stalled Proceedings

On 10 October 2014, the police presented a C-Summary before the JMFC. The JMFC rejected it and directed further investigation to be concluded within 60 days. That direction was not complied with.

The complainant then approached the Gujarat High Court. On 20 July 2017, the High Court directed preparation of an investigation report within six weeks, recording that some material collected during the investigation had gone missing from the concerned police station. An FSL Report was eventually prepared on 29 August 2017 and forwarded to the JMFC on 27 November 2017. The FSL Report stated that the accused had prepared forged documents and forged the complainant’s signatures. On the same date, the JMFC directed the police to take further action and carry out further investigation.

On 21 January 2018, the complainant again approached the JMFC, pointing out that neither the investigation had been concluded nor a final report submitted. The JMFC directed the investigating officer to specify within ten days whether the investigation remained pending or had been concluded. No meaningful response followed.

On 14 September 2022, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhiloda again directed the investigating officer to carry out the investigation and file a chargesheet. The complainant was then constrained to file yet another application before the High Court in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024, seeking a direction to the investigating officer to file the chargesheet.

By the impugned order dated 26 June 2025, the High Court dismissed the application. It held that no case was made out for issuance of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that, since the JMFC had already passed an order to similar effect, the appropriate remedy lay before the JMFC.

Why the High Court’s Refusal Was Wrong

The Supreme Court disagreed squarely with the High Court’s reasoning. The bench held that the High Court ought to have taken note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervened. The right to speedy trial, the Court said, is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court drew on its earlier decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511, which had traced the evolution of legislative and judicial recognition of the right to timely investigation. That judgment had observed that while no strict timelines are prescribed under the CrPC, investigations must be completed within a reasonable time. It had also directed that where a large gap exists between the FIR and the chargesheet, courts are bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency.

Applying that framework, the bench found that nearly two decades had passed since the complaint was filed. The original complainant had, in the Court’s words, “run from pillar to post, for filing of a chargesheet in connection with his complaint, but to no avail.” The Court held that it is incumbent upon constitutional courts not to remain mute spectators when such prolonged investigations are brought to their notice, and that the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene.

The State’s Explanation and the Court’s Response

The State of Gujarat submitted that the materials seized during investigation were sent for FSL examination and that the FSL had opined that the complainant had not authored the signatures on the forged documents. A detailed report along with original case papers was sent to the JMFC through Police Station Bhiloda via Outward No. 564/15. However, the material was stated to have been misplaced in transit and was never received by the JMFC.

The State further submitted that during re-investigation ordered by the High Court on 20 July 2017, the original case papers remained untraceable. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the officer concerned. The State’s position was that in the absence of original case records and the inability to conclusively trace all relevant witnesses, the investigation could not be carried out to its logical conclusion.

The Court was not persuaded. It observed that from the date of the High Court’s order directing re-investigation, nearly a decade had passed. Even if the police were unable to trace the relevant witnesses, an appropriate report seeking closure should ordinarily have been filed before the JMFC. The Court found no reason from the record why the complaint and investigation had remained pending till date.

The bench also expressed serious concern about the loss of case records during an active investigation, holding that such incidents “strike at the very core of the criminal justice system, rendering bonafide complaints inactionable.”

Directions Issued

The Court directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation within six weeks from 4 June 2026 and file an appropriate report with the JMFC containing all investigative material, including, if applicable, the lack thereof.

The State of Gujarat was separately directed to file an affidavit addressing three specific matters:

• The specific action taken against the officer involved in the loss of records, the stage of such action, and whether it was taken to its logical conclusion;
• Why, despite the JMFC’s directions to conclude further investigation after the loss of records, the JMFC was not informed of the inability to reconstruct records and track witnesses; and
• Compliance with the direction to conclude the investigation.

The matter was listed for further hearing on 14 July 2026 at 2.00 P.M. as part heard.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order dated 26 June 2025 dismissing the writ petition, and directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to file an investigation report before the JMFC within six weeks. The State was also required to file an affidavit on the three points set out above. The case was converted from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 17479 of 2025 and reported as 2026 INSC 626.