The Supreme Court has held that Supreme Court constitutional courts cannot be mute spectators criminal investigation delay cases require prompt judicial intervention. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the Gujarat Police to complete a long-pending forgery investigation within six weeks and ordered the State to file an affidavit detailing the action taken against the erring officer. The Bench emphasized that the right to a speedy trial forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court Takes Strong Note of Investigation Delay
The Court examined a criminal investigation that remained pending for nearly twenty years without a final report. It found the prolonged delay unacceptable and stressed that constitutional courts must act when such cases come before them.
Advocate Aastha Mehta, along with Advocates Prerana Mohapatra, Prina Sharma, and AOR Anshuman Srivastava, appeared for the appellant. AOR Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, and Advocate Neha Singh represented the respondent.
Background of the Forgery Dispute
The appellant’s father filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the respondents under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the property belonged exclusively to the complainant. While he was on the Hajj pilgrimage in 2002, the accused allegedly forged his signature, created a fake partition deed, and executed a bogus sale deed. They also secured fraudulent entries in the Revenue Records.
Earlier Court Proceedings
The Gujarat High Court earlier directed the preparation of an investigation report. The report concluded that the accused had forged documents and signatures.
Following the report, the Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the police to conduct further investigation. However, the police did not file a final report.
The complainant repeatedly approached the JMFC seeking directions. The Magistrate ordered the investigating officer to clarify the status of the investigation within ten days. The Additional Judicial Magistrate later instructed the police to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet.
Despite these directions, no charge sheet was filed. The complainant then approached the High Court again, but the High Court rejected the plea.
Supreme Court on Constitutional Duty
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction after noticing the prolonged delay.
The Bench reiterated that the right to a speedy trial flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution. It also noted that the complainant had spent nearly two decades pursuing justice without any meaningful progress.
The Court stated:
“This Court is of the view that it is incumbent upon constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators, when such prolonged investigations are brought to its notice.”
The Bench held that Supreme Court constitutional courts cannot be mute spectators criminal investigation delay situations demand timely judicial intervention to protect constitutional rights.
State Explains the Delay
The State of Gujarat argued that investigators could not complete the probe because the original case records had gone missing. It also submitted that officials could not trace all relevant witnesses.
The State informed the Court that it had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officer after discovering that the original records were untraceable.
Court Rejects the State’s Justification
The Supreme Court found the State’s explanation inadequate. It pointed out that almost ten years had passed since the High Court ordered re-investigation, yet the authorities had made little progress.
The Bench observed that if investigators could not locate witnesses or reconstruct records, they should have filed a closure report before the JMFC instead of allowing the matter to remain pending indefinitely.
The Court further remarked that losing records during an active investigation undermines the criminal justice system and prevents genuine complainants from obtaining justice.
Supreme Court Issues Directions
The Bench directed the State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda to complete the investigation within six weeks. It ordered the authorities to file an appropriate report before the JMFC based on the available evidence or clearly record the absence of material.
The Court also directed the State to file an affidavit addressing the following issues:
- The action taken against the erring officer and the current status of those proceedings.
- The reasons for not informing the JMFC about the inability to reconstruct records and trace witnesses.
- The present status of compliance with the direction to complete the investigation.
