Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into How Two Rape Case Files Went Missing From UP Court

The Supreme Court today(February 25) issued directions to the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether the files relating to two alleged rape cases were deliberately made untraceable.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a bunch of transfer petitions concerning allegations of acid attack and gangrape. In these petitions, it has been alleged that the police had filed closure reports, but the documents were not provided to the alleged victims.

In two cases (Case Crime No. 740/2009 and Case Crime No. 489/2012), the Court had, in November 2025, ordered the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rai Baraeili, to obtain an appropriate report from the Trial Court as to whether the case records are available. In January, it ordered the reconstruction of the records.

Today, when the matter came up, Advocate on Record Shaurya Sahay (for State of Uttar Pradesh) informed the Court that the alleged missing files have been traced. To this, Justice Datta questioned how, after judicial intervention, the files suddenly became available when, for so many years, the victim had been pleading to get access to them.

Justice Datta said: "This is not done. We have been hearing this matter. When I was sitting with Justice Masih, we heard for almost four days. Madam Neekhra was crying dehours that my file is untraceable, untraceable, untraceable. Now, when we say reconstruct, the files come up."

Advocate Pragati Neekhra(for petitioners) submitted that there are many such cases where files have gone missing. Justice Datta responded that a list be given to the Court, and it will pass orders asking for a status report in these matters.

It ordered: "Read the office report dated...it appears that the missing records have been traced out only after this Court had directed reconstruction of missing records. That is indeed a positive development, but the fact is that the records were traced only after judicial intervention. We need to ascertain whether untraceability was attributable to any motivated attempt to obstruct the flow of justice or arose out of genuine human error. We direct the District Judge, Rae Bareilly, to inquire into the matter and submit a report within six weeks.

She points out that for several other cases, the records are missing...The District Judges of so and so are directed to submit a status report with regard to the availability of alleged missing files. The aforesaid may reach this Court within six weeks."

To briefly state, in Case Crime No. 740/2009, the closure report was filed on March 6, 2009. After which, the petitioner-victim filed a protest petition, and the Trial Court registered it as a complaint case in 2012. However, it was dismissed in 2014, on account of the unavailability of the petitioner. The petitioner's account is that she was never given the closure report and therefore, she could not apply for a recall.

As for Case Crime No. .489/2012, the case pertains to the allegation of acid attack and gangrape. As per the State of UP, an investigation was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department, but no prima facie case was made out against the accused. It was claimed that despite several notices, the petitioner-victim did not appear, and her statement was not recorded. Eventually, a closure report was filed in 2014.

But the State conceded to the claim that prior to the closure report being made part of the affidavit in these proceedings, a copy of the same was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, claims that she was suffering from an acid attack and was continuously threatened by the accused.

The Court had allowed her to file a protest petition and observed that her safety and security must be ensured by the SP, Rai Bareilli. She can also approach the District Legal Services for assistance.

Case Details: XXXXXXX Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|T.P.(Crl.) No. 892-899/2025