Home  > Recent Judgements  > SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORDERS INQUIRY INTO MISSING RAPE CASE FILES IN UTTAR PRADESH

Feb 26- 2026

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORDERS INQUIRY INTO MISSING RAPE CASE FILES IN UTTAR PRADESH

Introduction

In a significant development highlighting concerns over judicial record-keeping and access to justice, the Supreme Court of India on February 25 directed the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry into the disappearance of files relating to two alleged rape cases.

The Court expressed serious concern that the case records were traced only after it ordered their reconstruction, raising doubts about whether the earlier “UNTRACEABILITY” was accidental or deliberate.

Background of the Case

The matter arose from a batch of transfer petitions involving allegations of acid attack and gangrape. The petitioners contended that:

  • Closure reports were filed by the police.
  • Copies of these reports were never supplied to the alleged victims.
  • Case files later became “untraceable” when access was sought.

The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took note of two specific matters:

  • Case Crime No. 740/2009
  • Case Crime No. 489/2012

Earlier, in November 2025, the Court had directed the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, to report on whether the records were available. In January 2026, when it appeared that the files were missing, the Court ordered reconstruction of the records.

Surprisingly, when the matter was taken up on February 25, the State informed the Court that the files had been “traced.”

Strong Observations by the Court

Justice Dipankar Datta expressed sharp disapproval over the sequence of events. He questioned how files that remained untraceable for years suddenly surfaced only after judicial intervention.

The Court noted in its order:

The missing records have been traced only after this Court had directed reconstruction of missing records. While that is a positive development, the fact remains that the records were located only after judicial intervention.

The Court made it clear that it must ascertain whether:

  • The disappearance was a motivated attempt to obstruct justice, or
  • It resulted from genuine human error.

Directions Issued

The Court directed:

  1. The District Judge, Rae Bareilly, to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances under which the files went missing and were subsequently traced.
  2. A report to be submitted within six weeks.
  3. District Judges in other concerned districts to submit status reports regarding availability of other allegedly missing records.

This direction came after the petitioners’ counsel submitted that several other case files in similar matters had also gone missing.

Details of the Two Cases

  1. Case Crime No. 740/2009
  • Closure report filed on March 6, 2009.
  • The victim filed a protest petition.
  • It was registered as a complaint case in 2012.
  • The complaint was dismissed in 2014 due to alleged non-appearance of the petitioner.

The petitioner contends that she was never furnished with the closure report, depriving her of the opportunity to seek recall or pursue appropriate remedies.

2. Case Crime No. 489/2012

This case involves allegations of acid attack and gang rape.

  • Investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department.
  • Closure report filed in 2014.
  • State claimed the victim failed to appear despite notices.
  • However, the State conceded that the closure report copy was not supplied to the petitioner prior to filing the affidavit in the Supreme Court.

The petitioner stated that she was an acid attack survivor and was continuously threatened by the accused, affecting her ability to participate in proceedings.

The Court permitted her to file a protest petition and directed that her safety and security be ensured by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly. She was also granted liberty to approach the District Legal Services Authority for assistance.

Legal Significance

This order underscores several critical principles:

  • Access to Justice: Victims must be informed of closure reports to effectively exercise their right to protest.
  • Judicial Accountability: Courts are willing to examine administrative lapses that may hinder justice.
  • Institutional Transparency: Missing judicial records cannot be brushed aside as routine errors without scrutiny.
  • Victim Protection: The Court emphasized safety measures and legal aid support for vulnerable complainants.

The case also raises broader systemic concerns about record management in subordinate courts and whether procedural lapses can effectively frustrate justice in serious offences.

Broader Implications

The Supreme Court’s intervention sends a strong message that:

  • Judicial records cannot “disappear” without consequences.
  • Administrative inefficiency cannot override victims’ rights.
  • Courts will scrutinize suspicious procedural irregularities.

If the inquiry reveals deliberate suppression, it could lead to disciplinary or even criminal consequences against responsible officials.

Judicial Intervention as a Trigger for Accountability

One of the most striking aspects of the case is the timing of the recovery of the records. For years, the victim had allegedly been informed that the files were “untraceable.” However, once the Supreme Court directed reconstruction of records, the files were suddenly located.

This sequence prompted the Bench to question whether the unavailability of the files was merely administrative negligence or something more serious. The Court’s insistence on an inquiry reflects its intolerance for procedural opacity in criminal matters involving grave offences.

Right of the Victim to Receive Closure Reports

A central issue in the case is the failure to furnish closure reports to the alleged victims. Under criminal procedure, once a closure report is filed, the complainant or victim has a right to:

  • Receive a copy of the report
  • File a protest petition
  • Seek further investigation

Denial of access to the closure report effectively deprives the victim of the opportunity to challenge the investigation’s conclusions. The Supreme Court’s observations indirectly reaffirm the victim’s participatory rights in criminal proceedings.

Institutional Responsibility of District Judiciary

By directing the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, to conduct a time-bound inquiry, the Supreme Court placed responsibility squarely on the administrative head of the district judiciary.

This ensures that the investigation into missing files remains within the judicial administrative framework rather than being left solely to executive authorities. The order reflects the Court’s effort to maintain institutional integrity while addressing potential lapses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order reflects a firm commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. By directing a time-bound inquiry, the Court has emphasized that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

The outcome of the District Judge’s inquiry will be crucial in determining whether this episode represents systemic negligence or a more troubling attempt to obstruct justice.