Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri vs Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri

2026 INSC 626
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO. 17479 OF 2025)


SAHIL ABDULSATTAR
MANSURI & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS


SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI
MANSURI & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)


O R D E R

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Justice delayed is justice denied. While this proverb has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SOURAV PAL
been reiterated by Courts for time immemorial, the case at hand
Date: 2026.06.04
16:08:47 IST
Reason:
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 1 of 10

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

1
4. The father of the appellant(s) instituted a complaint before
2
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda against respondent
no. 1 to 4, under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463,468, 471, and 114
3
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . It was alleged therein that the
subject property, being Survey No. 761, Bhiloda Village, was
self-acquired by him 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

1
Hererinafter ‘original complainant’.
2
Hereinafter ‘JMFC’.
3
Hereinafter ‘IPC’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 2 of 10

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
4
consideration of an application filed by the original complainant
5
before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad , 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.


4
Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 4455 of 2017.
5
Hereinafter ‘High Court’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 3 of 10

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
6
complainant was constrained to file another application 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 Constitution and since the JMFC had already
passed an order to similar effect, an appropriate proceeding
should have been initiated before the JMFC.



6
Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 2029 of 2024.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 4 of 10

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
7
Bihar :

“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

7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 5 of 10

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.

… … …

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.

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 6 of 10

(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 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.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 7 of 10

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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 8 of 10

inability to conclusively trace all relevant witnesses, the
investigation could not be carried out to its logical conclusion.

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:
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 9 of 10

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.


………..…………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



………..……………………….…..J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

New Delhi
June 4, 2026
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17479/2025 Page 10 of 10