Skip to content

Magistrate before accepting Closure Report of the investigating agency is duty bound to inform the Complainant: High Court of J&K&L

The Court has observed that a Magistrate before accepting closure report of the investigating agency is duty bound to issue a notice to the informant/complainant and afford him an opportunity of hearing.

The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & anr., (AIR 1985 SC 1285) wherein it has clearly laid down that on a consideration of the report made by the investigating agency, if the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard, so that he can make his submission to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence and issue process. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity of hearing at the time of consideration of the closure report. It has been further held that even the investigating agency has to inform the complainant about the action taken by the Police and a copy of the closure report has to be supplied to him.

In the instant case, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption had accepted the closure report submitted by the respondent no. 3 in FIR no. 04 of 2007 for offences under Seciton 5(2) of the PC Act read with Section 161 of the RPC without informing the petitioner, who happens to be complainant in the FIR. Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the impugned order before the High Court by filing the instant petition.

In the petition, it was the plea of the petitioner that she was never provided with a copy of closure report by the Police nor any notice was issued by the investigating agency to him informing him about the fate of her FIR.  

Even the learned Special Judge did not issue a notice to her before accepting the closure report. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to come to know about the fate of her FIR.

The Court after referring to the judgments observed that:

“9. For the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the order impugned passed by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu is not sustainable in law, as such, the same is set aside. The learned Special Judge is directed to accord consideration to the closure report filed by the Vigilance Organization in FIR No. 04 of 2007 afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”

Click here to download the Order

Case Details:
Dr. Rajni Sharma vs State Of J&K And Ors
CRMC No. 391 of 2016 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Mr. S. M. Chowdhary, Advocate, appeared for the appellant
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG for R- 1 to 3.
Mr. Nigham Mehta, Adv. Vice Mr. Raghu Mehta, Adv. for R-4.
Date of Order: 15-02-2022