### High Court Must Intervene Under Article 226 Against Inordinate Delays in Filing Chargesheets and Investigation

The father of the appellants filed a criminal complaint in 2007 before the JMFC, Bhiloda, alleging that while he was on pilgrimage in 2002, the respondents forged his signature to create a partition deed and sale deed for his self-acquired property.

In 2014, the JMFC rejected a ‘C-Summary’ (closure report) and ordered further investigation.

In 2017, the High Court of Gujarat recorded that some case material had gone missing from police custody and ordered an investigation report within six weeks.

An FSL report subsequently confirmed the forgeries.

Despite multiple subsequent orders from the JMFC in 2017, 2018, and 2022 directing the filing of a charge-sheet, the investigation remained incomplete.

The High Court, via the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, refused to issue a direction for filing the charge-sheet, suggesting the parties approach the JMFC instead.

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) despite an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in investigation.

2. Whether the loss of original case records by the police justifies the indefinite pendency of a criminal investigation.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial and timely completion of investigation is an inherent facet of the right to life and liberty.

The precedent of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025), which established that while strict timelines for investigation are not in the CrPC/BNSS, investigations must conclude within a "reasonable time" and the judiciary must seek explanations for large gaps between the FIR and the charge-sheet.

Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to intervene to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The Supreme Court observed that the investigation had been languishing for nearly twenty years, forcing the complainant to "run from pillar to post".

The court criticized the High Court for remaining a "mute spectator" instead of exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in the face of such a prolonged delay.

Regarding the State’s defense—that original papers were lost in transit and witnesses were untraceable—the Court noted that nearly a decade had passed since the 2017 re-investigation order.

The Court reasoned that if records were truly lost or witnesses unavailable, the police were duty-bound to file a closure report before the JMFC rather than keeping the matter pending indefinitely.

The Court held that losing case records strikes at the core of the criminal justice system and must be treated with "utmost seriousness".

The Court directed: (i) the State and Bhiloda Police Station to conclude the investigation and file a report with the JMFC within six weeks; (ii) the State to file an affidavit detailing disciplinary actions against officers responsible for the lost records; and (iii) an explanation as to why the JMFC was not informed of the inability to reconstruct records.