Summary
A private complaint of forgery filed in 2007 remained under investigation for nearly two decades, with case papers lost in police custody. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have intervened under Article 226 instead of relegating the complainant to the Magistrate, directed the police to conclude the investigation within six weeks, required an explanatory affidavit from the State, and kept the matter part-heard.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was right in declining to direct the filing of a chargesheet under Article 226 on the ground that the Magistrate had already passed a similar order.
- Whether inordinate delay in investigation, including loss of case records in police custody, called for intervention by the constitutional courts.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, the Court treated speedy trial, including timely completion of investigation, as a facet of Article 21, and held that investigations cannot continue endlessly. (¶ 11)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court had refused relief under Article 226 because the Magistrate had passed a similar order. The Supreme Court held that, given the two-decade delay, the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13)
- Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Noted through the quoted directions in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu that where investigation runs unduly long without justification, the accused or the complainant may approach the High Court for an update on the investigation or, in the case of the accused, quashing. (¶ 11)
Held
- The right to speedy trial under Article 21 includes timely completion of investigation; although no rigid timelines exist, investigation must be completed within a reasonable time, and both the accused and the complainant may seek the High Court's intervention when it is unduly prolonged. (¶ 11)
- Where a complaint has remained under investigation for nearly two decades despite the complainant's repeated efforts, constitutional courts cannot remain mute spectators; the High Court erred in declining to intervene merely because the Magistrate had earlier directed further investigation. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13)
- Even if the police could not trace witnesses or lost records, they should ordinarily have filed an appropriate closure report before the Magistrate; loss of case records during an active investigation is a serious matter that renders bona fide complaints inactionable. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The State and the police station were directed to conclude the investigation within six weeks and file a report with the Magistrate, and the State was directed to file an affidavit on the action taken against the officer concerned, why the Magistrate was not told of the inability to reconstruct records, and compliance. (¶ 18)
Result
Leave granted; interim directions issued to conclude the investigation within six weeks and file a report before the JMFC, with an affidavit from the State of Gujarat; the matter was listed on 14.07.2026 as part-heard.