Wednesday, 9 September 2020

Whether the court can reject a closure report filed by the police on the ground that complainant was not satisfied?

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is totally non-speaking as the Court did not give
reasons as to why the complainant was not satisfied.
[6]. Learned State counsel submitted that the Police had
already prepared the cancellation report in favour of the
petitioner after due investigation of the case.
[7]. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
[8]. The complainant being an interested party would
obviously not be satisfied with the cancellation report. Recital in
the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 that the complainant was
not satisfied, in my considered view cannot be the sole ground

to discard the cancellation report as the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate has not elaborated the reasons of dissatisfaction of
the complainant except to allege that the Police did not consider
the material aspects of inquiry report dated 27.03.2018
conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails)
Punjab, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner.
[9]. Be that as it may, at this stage without forming any
opinion on merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to
direct the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha to revisit
the issue and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5036-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.09.2020

RAVINDER KUMAR  Vs   STATE OF PUNJAB


CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH


[1]. The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.
[2]. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.10.2018
passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha in FIR
No.103 dated 24.11.2006 registered under Section 409 IPC at
Police Station Kotwali, Nabha District Patiala along with other
reliefs.
[3]. Perusal of the record would show that the Police
investigated the offence and filed cancellation report. Notice
was given to the complainant. On appearance, the complainant

showed his dissatisfaction with the cancellation report submitted
by the Investigating Agency. The complainant alleged that the
Investigating Agency has not considered the material aspects of
the case while submitting cancellation report. Complainant
prayed for further investigation in view of inquiry report.
[4]. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha vide
order dated 13.10.2018 rejected the cancellation report and
sent the case for further investigation with specific direction to
the Police to deal with the inquiry report in detail and to give
findings thereof.
[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is totally non-speaking as the Court did not give
reasons as to why the complainant was not satisfied.
[6]. Learned State counsel submitted that the Police had
already prepared the cancellation report in favour of the
petitioner after due investigation of the case.
[7]. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
[8]. The complainant being an interested party would
obviously not be satisfied with the cancellation report. Recital in
the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 that the complainant was
not satisfied, in my considered view cannot be the sole ground

to discard the cancellation report as the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate has not elaborated the reasons of dissatisfaction of
the complainant except to allege that the Police did not consider
the material aspects of inquiry report dated 27.03.2018
conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails)
Punjab, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner.
[9]. Be that as it may, at this stage without forming any
opinion on merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to
direct the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha to revisit
the issue and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 is set
aside and Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha is directed
to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
[10]. Disposed of.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
September 01, 2020 
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment