Supreme Court Takes Serious View Of Loss Of Records In 19 Year Gujarat Police Case, Seeks Action Against Errant Officers

The Supreme Court on Thursday took a serious view of the loss of case records during the investigation of a 19-year-old criminal complaint in Gujarat, observing that such incidents strike at the very core of the criminal justice system and render bona fide complaints inactionable.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the State of Gujarat to disclose the action taken against the police officer responsible for the loss of records and ordered the completion of the long-pending investigation within six weeks.

"The 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." the Court observed.

The case arose from a 2007 complaint alleging forgery of signatures and fabrication of a partition deed and sale deed in respect of a property in Bhiloda village, Gujarat. The complainant alleged that the accused forged documents and mutated their names in revenue records while he was away on a Haj pilgrimage.

During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that material collected during the investigation, including original case papers and a report, was misplaced while being transmitted to the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhiloda. Although disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned officer, the loss of records led to a re-investigation and prolonged delays.

The State further submitted that the original records could not be traced and that investigators were unable to locate all relevant witnesses, preventing the investigation from reaching its conclusion.

Court expresses concern over prolonged probe

Rejecting the explanation for the prolonged pendency, the Court noted that nearly a decade had passed since the High Court ordered re-investigation in 2017. It observed that even if witnesses could not be traced, the investigating agency ought to have filed an appropriate report before the Magistrate instead of allowing the matter to remain pending indefinitely.

The Court took serious note of the Gujarat Police's failure to complete the investigation within a reasonable timeframe. The Court also criticized the High Court for not taking appropriate steps to intervene in the matter, despite repeated complaints bringing the delayed investigation to its attention.

The Court observed that constitutional courts cannot remain "mute spectators" when confronted with prolonged and unexplained delays in criminal investigations.

“…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.”, observed the bench.

The dispute traces back to a criminal complaint filed in 2007 by the appellants' father before the JMFC, Bhiloda, alleging offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations and repeated judicial orders, the investigation remained inconclusive for years.

Thereafter, the Appellant once again approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction, praying for directions to the investigating officer to file a chargesheet.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to intervene in the matter on the ground that the appropriate order had already been passed by the magistrate, prompted the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol at the outset criticized the High Court's approach to not interfere in the matter.

“…the High Court ought to have taken note of the inordinate delay in filing of the chargesheet and intervened in the matter at hand.”, the court observed

“…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.”, the court added.

The Court also criticized the State Police for failing to file a closure report, particularly after the police themselves contended that the delay in the investigation was caused by the case papers having gone untraceable.

“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.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, with a direction to the Gujarat Police and Police Station Bhiloda to conclude the investigation within six weeks and place a comprehensive report before the JMFC, including all available investigative material or details regarding any missing material.

The Court also directed the State Government to file an affidavit detailing:

• The specific action taken against the officer responsible for the loss of records and the status of such proceedings;

• Why the JMFC was not informed about the inability to reconstruct records or locate witnesses despite repeated judicial directions; and

• Compliance with the direction to complete the investigation.

The matter has been directed to be listed again on July 14, 2026 for reporting compliance.

Cause Title: SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI & ORS. VERSUS SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI & ORS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Click here to download judgment

Related- Investigation Cannot Go Endlessly; Long Delay In Filing Chargesheet Can Be A Ground To Quash Proceedings : Supreme Court

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Satyam Chhayya, Adv. Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Aman Rawat, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.