Evan V

The Supreme Court on February 25 directed the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh), to conduct an inquiry into how records relating to two criminal cases—both involving allegations of sexual violence—were reported “untraceable” for years and surfaced only after judicial intervention.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of transfer petitions arising out of allegations, including acid attack and gang rape, where the petitioners have alleged that closure reports were filed, but relevant documents were not furnished to the alleged victims.

In Case Crime No. 740/2009 and Case Crime No. 489/2012, the Court had earlier (in November 2025) directed the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly to obtain a report from the trial court on record availability. In January, the Court had also directed the reconstruction of the missing records.

Also Read: Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Cannot Stall CIRP Under IBC; Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Abeyance Order

When the matter was taken up on February 25, Advocate-on-Record Shaurya Sahay (for the State of Uttar Pradesh) informed the Court that the allegedly missing files had now been traced. Justice Datta questioned how records said to be unavailable for years suddenly became available only after the Supreme Court issued reconstruction directions, observing:"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."

Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Pragati Neekhra, submitted that similar instances of missing records also exist in other cases. Justice Datta indicated that a list be provided, and the Court would consider passing orders calling for status reports in those matters.

In its order, the Court recorded that the tracing of files after judicial intervention, though a “positive development”, warranted scrutiny to determine whether the earlier “untraceability” was bona fide or motivated. The order states: "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 a motivated attempt to obstruct the flow of justice or arose from 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 the records are missing for several other cases...The District Judges of so and so are directed to submit a status report regarding the availability of the alleged missing files. The aforesaid may reach this Court within six weeks."

In Case Crime No. 740/2009, the State’s position is that a closure report was filed on March 6, 2009. The petitioner-victim states that she was not furnished with the closure report. She later filed a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case in 2012 and subsequently dismissed in 2014 due to her alleged non-appearance. The petitioner contends that the lack of access to the closure report prevented her from pursuing appropriate remedial steps, including seeking a recall.

Also Read: Single Blow In Heat Of Moment During Sudden Quarrel Without Prior Intention Does Not Constitute Murder: Tripura High Court Converts Husband's Conviction to Culpable Homicide

Case Crime No. 489/2012 pertains to allegations of acid attack and gang rape. The State submitted that the matter was investigated by the CID and no prima facie case was found. It was stated that despite notices, the petitioner did not appear, and her statement could not be recorded; a closure report was ultimately filed in 2014.

However, the State conceded before the Supreme Court that the closure report was not furnished to the petitioner before it was annexed to the affidavit filed in these proceedings. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that she was an acid attack survivor and was continuously threatened by the accused.

The Court has previously permitted the petitioner to file a protest petition and directed that her safety and security be ensured by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly. It also noted that she may approach the District Legal Services Authority for assistance.

Case Title: XXXXXXX v. State of Uttar Pradesh 

Case No.: T.P.(Crl.) Nos. 892–899/2025

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma