Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 27.01.2018, 19.10.2019 and 08.11.2019 filed the present writ petition and challenged these orders on the grounds that the impugned orders are contrary to law and facts on records. The trial court should not decline to accept the First Closure Report without any justifiable or cogent legal reasons. The law only requires issuance of notice to the first informant on filing of the Closure Report and in the present case, the first informant i.e. Parmil Mittal had already recorded his no objection by way affidavit 16.12.2017. There was no occasion for the Special Judge, CBI to issue notice to any other person as aggrieved. There is no provision in the Code for impleading of any other person as per section 173 (2) (ii) of the Code. The Final Report was required to be communicated only to the first informant not to the alleged aggrieved person. The Trial Court has passed the impugned orders in mechanical manner and without application of mind and as such the impugned orders are manifestly erroneous and contrary to the law. The impleading of alleged aggrieved party in Closure Report is beyond the CRl. M.C 6343/2019 KIRAN TANEJA V STATE 11 /24 powers of the Trial Court. Vijay Gautam is already litigating before the Civil Court since 2011 prior to the registration of the present case. It is prayed that the impugned orders dated 27.01.2018, 19.10.2019 and 08.11.2019 be quashed along with consequential proceedings.

CRl. M.C 6343/2019 KIRAN TANEJA V STATE 14 /24 7.1 A fair investigation mandates the police to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused after thorough examination of material collected during investigation. It is duty of the investigating agency to assist the court in a trial if a case is made out after conclusion of investigation. If there is no prima facie case is made out against the accused after conclusion of investigation then a closure report has to be filed in concerned court as per section 169 of the Code. It is also the duty of the Magistrate or the concerned court to ascertain whether there is any material in closure report to proceed against the accused and cognizance cannot be taken if there is no such material against the accused. A closure report is considered to be an important aspect of a fair investigation which is given under section 169 of the Code and protects the accused from unwanted and vexatious prosecution. Section 169 of the Code reads as under:-

CRl. M.C 6343/2019 KIRAN TANEJA V STATE 15 /24 7.2 Section 169 of the Code reflects that the closure report submitted by the police or the investigating agencies to the Magistrate or the concerned court stating that after investigation no evidence or reasonable grounds for suspicion could be found to connect the accused to the alleged crime but the Magistrate can direct the police to conduct further investigation. A closure report in morphology is different from a final report filed under section 173 of the Code. After filing of closure report a Magistrate can accept the report and close the case or direct the investigation agency to conduct further investigation or issue notice to the first informant as he is the only person who can challenge the closure report or may reject the closure report and take cognizance of the case under Section 190 of Code and can issue a process of proceedings under Section 204 of the Code. Mere submission of a closure report does not mean that no proceeding can take place against the accused in the future. A Coordinate Bench of this court in N. K. Rai V Central Board of Investigation, Crl.M.C. No.6023/2018 decided on 29th November, 2018 observed that the closure report is not binding on the trial court and the court is expected to apply its independent mind to the material on the record and merely CRl. M.C 6343/2019 KIRAN TANEJA V STATE 16 /24 CBI had made certain observations which partially support the petitioner, cannot be a ground to tinker with the directions for further investigation given by the trial court. The Supreme Court in Amar Nath Chaubey V Union of India, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6951 of 2018 decided on 14th December, 2020 did not accept plea of the police that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate.

11. There is no provision in the Code which allows a party to be CRl. M.C 6343/2019 KIRAN TANEJA V STATE 22 /24 impleaded during trial or otherwise. No such right is recognized in scheme of the Code as recognized under civil law where a party can be impleaded as necessary party whose presence is required for just disposal of case. The impleader was not a complainant in registration of FIR bearing no 01/2013. The investigating agency has conducted through investigation arising out of FIR bearing no 01/2013 and thereafter concluded that no incrimination evidence could be collected against private accused. The competent authorities did not grant sanction for prosecution against the public servants. FSL was not conclusive in absence of original Will. The impleader/applicant/Vijay Gautam or any other person does not enjoy any right to be heard at the time of consideration of Closure Report being neither informant not complainant. It hardly gives any advantage to the impleader/applicant/Vijay Gautam that he made a complaint dated 17.10.2013 for investigation regarding forgery of Will and misappropriation of the property particularly when civil dispute is pending between the concerned parties. As discussed hereinabove and as laid down in Bhagwant Singh, Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari that right to issue notice at the time of CRl. M.C 6343/2019 KIRAN TANEJA V STATE 23 /24 consideration of Closure Report is given to informant and none else. There is force in arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel that the trial court erred in law while giving an opportunity to be heard to Vijay Gautam and Harsh Gautam at the time of consideration of Closure Report. Accordingly orders dated 19.10.2019 and 08.11.2019 are set aside as legally not sustainable and have passed without considering and appreciating correct legal proposition as discussed hereinabove and application bearing no 2069/2020 is dismissed. The arguments advanced by the counsel for impleader/applicant/Vijay Gautam are without any legal force and do not appeal to reasons.