Delay in 19-Year Forgery Investigation Prompts Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to complete a 19-year forgery investigation within six weeks. The Court observed that constitutional courts cannot remain “mute spectators” when criminal investigations remain pending for years without meaningful progress. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the order on June 4, 2026.
The appeal arose from the Gujarat High Court’s order dated June 26, 2025, which refused to direct the filing of a chargesheet. The Supreme Court examined whether such prolonged inaction violated the right to a speedy investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Property Dispute
The dispute began with a complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhiloda. The complainant alleged offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the complainant purchased Survey No. 761 in Bhiloda Village on December 11, 1975. While he was on Haj pilgrimage between February and March 2002, the accused allegedly forged his signature, prepared a fake partition deed, executed a bogus sale deed, and secured mutation of their names in the revenue records.
Earlier Investigation and Court Orders
In October 2014, the police submitted a C-Summary report before the JMFC. The Magistrate rejected the report and ordered further investigation within sixty days.
Later, the Gujarat High Court directed the police to prepare an investigation report within six weeks after learning that some investigation records had gone missing from police custody.
A Forensic Science Laboratory report dated August 29, 2017 concluded that the accused had forged the complainant’s signatures and documents. Based on this report, the JMFC again ordered further investigation. Despite repeated judicial directions, the investigating agency did not file a chargesheet.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The complainant again approached the Gujarat High Court and sought directions to the investigating officer to file a chargesheet.
The High Court declined the request. It held that no case existed for exercising powers under Article 226 because the JMFC had already issued directions regarding the investigation.
State Explains the Delay
Before the Supreme Court, the State of Gujarat submitted that investigators had sent the seized materials for forensic examination. The forensic report concluded that the disputed signatures did not belong to the complainant.
The State also explained that officials dispatched the original case papers to the JMFC through Police Station Bhiloda, but the records went missing before reaching the court.
After the High Court ordered re-investigation in 2017, authorities could not trace the original records. The State informed the Court that it initiated disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officer. It also stated that investigators could not locate key witnesses, making it difficult to complete the probe.
Supreme Court on Speedy Investigation
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the High Court should have considered the extraordinary delay before refusing relief.
The Bench reiterated that the right to a speedy trial includes the right to a timely investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court relied on its decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, which emphasized that investigations cannot continue indefinitely. Courts must seek explanations whenever investigating agencies take an unreasonable amount of time to file a chargesheet.
The Bench noted that nearly two decades had passed since the complaint was filed. It observed that the complainant had run from pillar to post without receiving effective relief.
The Court further held that constitutional courts must intervene when prolonged investigations threaten the administration of justice. The 19-year forgery investigation reflected exactly such an exceptional situation.
Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Missing Records
The Bench expressed serious concern over the disappearance of case records during an active criminal investigation.
It observed that losing official records strikes at the core of the criminal justice system and prevents genuine complainants from pursuing legal remedies.
The Court also noted that almost ten years had passed after the High Court ordered re-investigation. If investigators could not trace witnesses or reconstruct records, they should have filed a closure report before the JMFC instead of leaving the matter pending indefinitely.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to complete the investigation within six weeks and submit an appropriate report before the JMFC. The report must include all available investigative material or clearly record the absence of such material.
The Court also directed the State of Gujarat to file an affidavit explaining:
- The action taken against the officer responsible for the loss of records and the current status of those proceedings.
- Why the JMFC was not informed about the inability to reconstruct records and trace witnesses despite earlier judicial directions.
- The present status of compliance with the Supreme Court’s direction to conclude the investigation.
Next Date of Hearing
The Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed on July 14, 2026, at 2:00 PM as a part-heard case to monitor compliance with its directions.
