Chattisgarh High Court
Ruhi Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 August, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1821 of 2023
Ruhi Agrawal D/o. Vijay Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Lane No.
03, Deepak Nagar, Tehsil - Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Supela, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. Udit Agrawal, H/o. Neha Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Flat No.
1503, Obey Rai Wood Gore Gaon, Mumbai, Maharashtra
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.08.2023 Heard.
1) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.235 of 2022, wherein, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in RCC No.9977 of 2022 in accepting the closure report filed by the prosecution on 21.09.2022 has been upheld and the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Police Station-Supela, District-Durg (C.G.) to the effect that on 08.08.2016, at about 7:00 P.M., the petitioner received a call from Cell No.9029082296 where the caller stated himself as Udit Agrawal and threatened her to not raise objection in pending Criminal -2- Case against Udit Agrawal and one Neha Agrawal. The Police registered the Crime No.735 of 2016 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 507 of the IPC. After investigation, the Police filed the closure report bearing closure No. 8/2017 before the concerned Court on the ground that on 08.08.2016 at about 7:00 p.m. respondent No.2/Udit Agrawal was on a flight from Hyderabad to Mumbai and thus, this fact has been corroborated with the information from the Director of Jet Airways. It is further found that Contact No.9029082296 belongs to STD/PCO of Mr. Mahendra Baabiya, Goregaon, Mumbai and the call was made by an unknown person.
Against the said closure report, the petitioner preferred a Protest Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. The statements of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer were recorded and on 21.09.2022, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the Protest Petition and accepted the closure report. The petitioner preferred a revision before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg and vide order dated 22.12.2022, the same was also dismissed.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged call was made from STD/PCO which was found to be in the same area where respondent No.2 permanently stays. It is further contended that the investigation was completed and the final report was filed based on the statement of the owner of the STD/PCO. He would further submit that when an offence has been registered it was the duty of the Police to investigate the matter properly and to bring 3 the culprits before the competent Criminal Court. He would also submit that the closure report was filed on 25.10.2021 but no necessary documents were supplied to the petitioner. He would next contend that the authorities have not investigated the matter properly therefore, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Court may be set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to investigate the matter fairly. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Hemant Dhasmana Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2001(7) SCC 536, Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2011 (12) SCC 302 and Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala and another Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 553.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that an FIR was lodged on 08.08.2016 to the effect that one Udit Agrawal made a call to the petitioner from mobile No.9029082296 and intimidated her. On such complaint, the Police registered an offence and investigated the matter and it was found that on the date and time of the incident, Udit Agrawal against whom the complaint was lodged and an FIR was registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 323, 498-A & 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was on a flight from Hyderabad to Mumbai and this fact has been verified and confirmed by the Director of Jet Airways. He would further submit that though STD/PCO from where the call was made is situated at -4- Goregaon, Mumbai where respondent No.2 normally stays but on such piece of evidence, no action can be taken against him. He would further submit that the learned Trial Court has rightly accepted the closure report and the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6) It is not in dispute that a call from an unknown person was made to the petitioner and an FIR was lodged against respondent No.2 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 507 of the IPC. The Police investigated the matter and it was found that at the time of the incident i.e. 08.08.2016 at about 7:22 P.M. respondent No.2 was on a flight from Hyderabad to Mumbai and this fact has been verified by the Director of Jet Airways. It is also found that though the call was made from Goregaon, Mumbai on that ground alone respondent No.2 cannot be held liable and therefore, the Police filed a closure report. The petitioner filed a protest petition and after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, learned Trial Court accepted the closure report and dismissed the protest petition. A revision was preferred and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2022.
7) In the matter of Hemant Dhasmana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the final report submitted by the police concludes that no offence was committed contrary to the allegations made in the complaint, it would be open to the Magistrate to order 5 further investigation to be made by Police, besides other options available to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 held as under
:
"15.When the report is filed under the Sub-section the magistrate (in this case the Special Judge) has to deal with it by bestowing his judicial consideration. If the report is to the effect that the allegations in the original complaint were found true in the investigation, or that some other accused and/or some other offences were also detected, the Court has to decide whether cognizance of the offences should be taken or not on the strength of that report. We do not think that it is necessary for us to vex our mind, in this case, regarding that aspect when the report points to the offences committed by some persons. But when the report is against the allegations contained in the complaint and concluded that no offence has been committed by any person it is open to the Court to accept the report after hearing the complainant at whose behest the investigation had commenced. If the Court feels, on a perusal of such a report that the alleged offences have in fact been committed by some persons the Court has the power to ignore the contrary conclusions made by the investigating officer in the final report. Then it is open to the Court to independently apply its mind to the facts emerging therefrom and can even take cognizance of the offences which appear to him to have been committed, in exercise of his power under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code. The third option is the one adumbrated in Section 173(8) of the Code. That sub-section reads thus:
"178. (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). "
8) In the matter of Jakia Nasim Ahesan (supra), it is held that before taking a final decision on closure report, the Court should issue notice to the complainant and make available copies of the statement of the witnesses and other related documents, relevant para 11 is given below :
-6-
"11. However, at this juncture, we deem it necessary to emphasise that if for any stated reason the SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint, dated 8th June 2006, before taking a final decision on such `closure' report, the Court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related documents and the investigation report strictly in accordance with law as enunciated by this Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr.. For the sake of ready reference, we may note that in the said decision, it has been held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code, decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report."
9) In the matter of Peethambaran (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for further investigation, there is no requirement to seek leave of the Court or to file a supplementary report, the relevant para 19 herein below :
"19. The Chief Police Officer of a district is the Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian Police Service. Needless to state, an order from the District Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by the concerned Magistrate. Referring to Vinay Tyagi (supra), this Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. noted that there is no specific requirement to seek leave of the court for further investigation or to file a supplementary report but investigation agencies, have not only understood it to be so but have also adopted the same as a legal requirement. The doctrine of contemporanea exposito aids such an interpretation of matters which have been long understood and implemented in a particular manner to be accepted into the interpretive process. In other words, the requirement of permission for further investigation or to file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore required to be complied with."
10) In the matter of Hemant Dhasmana (supra), the CBI was proceeding against the accused for an offence under Sections 182 7 and 211 of IPC and in that matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the offences appear to have been committed, the orders under Section 173(2) & (8) and 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. can be passed.
11) In the present case, a call was made from an unknown source and the caller could not be identified therefore, the Magistrate accepted the closure report but granted liberty to the Investigating Officer to continue with the investigation. Therefore, the facts of the case cited by the petitioner are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
12) In the matter of Jakia Nasim Ahesan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to make available copies of the statements of the witnesses and other related documents to complainant at the time of filing of the closure report.
In the present case, the closure report was filed, thereafter, the petitioner preferred a protest petition and at that time, no objection was raised to the effect that the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The protest petition was dismissed, thereafter, a criminal revision was preferred which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2022. From the above facts, it can be presumed that the petitioner filed the protest petition along with relevant documents and raised all grounds available to her. Therefore, this Court is not convinced with the ground raised by the petitioner with regard to non- supply of relevant documents.
13) In the matter of Peethambaran (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no specific requirement to seek leave of -8- the Court for further investigation. The learned Trial Court keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. has granted liberty to the Investigating Agency to collect the evidence and thus, this judgment is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
14) Taking into consideration the material available on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court as well as the learned Judicial Magistrate, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below, consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha