Supreme Court Orders Gujarat Police to File Chargesheet in Six Weeks After Nearly Two Decades of Inaction
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih faulted the Gujarat High Court for refusing to intervene despite nearly twenty years of stalled investigation into a forgery complaint.
The Supreme Court on 4 June 2026 set aside the Gujarat High Court's refusal to intervene in a criminal complaint that has been pending investigation since 2007 — nearly two decades. The Court directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation and file an appropriate report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class within six weeks. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that constitutional courts cannot remain mute spectators when prolonged investigations are brought to their notice, and that the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case involves allegations of forgery of a property partition deed and sale deed, allegedly executed while the original complainant was on Haj pilgrimage.
The Complaint and the Property Dispute
The original complainant — the father of the appellants — filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda, against four respondents under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint alleged that Survey No. 761, Bhiloda Village, was self-acquired property purchased on 11.12.1975. When the complainant was away on Haj pilgrimage from 5 February 2002 to 21 March 2002, the accused persons allegedly forged his signature, prepared a forged partition deed and a bogus sale deed, and had their names entered into the Revenue Records on the basis of those forged documents.
The complaint was registered on 14.09.2007. What followed was nearly two decades of procedural stagnation, repeated court directions, and an investigation that never reached a final report.
A Trail of Directions That Led Nowhere
On 10.10.2014, the police presented a C-Summary before the JMFC, which was rejected. The JMFC directed further investigation to be concluded within 60 days. The complainant then approached the Gujarat High Court. On 20.07.2017, 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 custody of the concerned Police Station.
The FSL Report, prepared on 29.08.2017 and forwarded to the JMFC on 27.11.2017, stated that the accused persons 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 in Summary No. 59 of 2017.
On 21.01.2018, the complainant again approached the JMFC, pointing out that neither the investigation had concluded nor a final report had been submitted. The JMFC directed the investigating officer to specify within ten days whether investigation remained pending or had been concluded. On 14.09.2022, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhiloda, again directed the investigating officer to carry out investigation and file a chargesheet in accordance with law.
Despite all these directions, no chargesheet was filed. The complainant was then constrained to file Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024 before the Gujarat High Court, praying for a direction to the investigating officer to file a chargesheet.
The High Court's Refusal and the Supreme Court's Disagreement
By its impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition. The High Court 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, an appropriate proceeding should have been initiated before the JMFC.
The Supreme Court disagreed squarely. The Court held that the High Court ought to have taken note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervened. The Court found that the original complainant had “run from pillar to post” for filing of a chargesheet, but to no avail. Nearly two decades had passed since the initiation of the complaint, and the investigation had not reached any meaningful conclusion.
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 in the peculiar circumstances of this case.
The Right to Speedy Trial and the Statutory Framework
The bench grounded its reasoning in Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right to speedy trial is intrinsically linked to it. 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 recognition of prompt investigation in Indian criminal procedure.
From that decision, the Court extracted the principle that while no strict timelines are provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, investigations are to be completed in a reasonable time. The Court also reproduced the direction from that case that where investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears unduly long without adequate justification, the accused or the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS or Section 482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if approached by the accused, quashing.
The Court applied this framework directly to the facts. The investigation had continued for nearly twenty years. The FSL Report had confirmed forgery. Multiple courts had directed further investigation. Yet no chargesheet had been filed.
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 the FSL 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 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 20.07.2017, 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 found 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 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 Court 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.”
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directions:
First, the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda are directed to conclude the investigation within six weeks from 4 June 2026 and file an appropriate report with the JMFC containing all investigative material, and if applicable, the lack thereof.
Second, the State of Gujarat is directed to file an affidavit indicating: (a) the specific action taken against the officer involved in the loss of records, 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; and (c) compliance with the direction to conclude investigation.
The matter is listed for further hearing on 14.07.2026 at 2.00 P.M. as part heard.