Magistrate Not Required To Notify Injured Party Or Deceased's Relative Before Considering Closure Report Unless FIR Filed by Them: J&K High Court

In a judgment passed by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, the court stated that there is no obligation on the magistrate to issue notice to the injured or a relative of the deceased for providing such person an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report unless such person is the informant who has lodged the FIR.

However, the court has also added that though such a person is not entitled to a notice from the Magistrate, he can still appear before the Magistrate and make his submissions when the report comes up for consideration before the Magistrate to decide what action he will take on the report.

“Whether it is the informant or the injured person or any relative of the deceased, he may be heard by the Magistrate only when the Magistrate proposes not to take cognizance of the police report and drop the proceedings”, the court emphasised.

Case Background and Proceedings:

The case stemmed from a 2011 accident in Jammu where Sarabjeet Singh, son of respondent Sukhdev Singh, died after his motorcycle collided with a scooter. The police registered an FIR based on information received from reliable sources and later submitted a closure report, concluding that Sarabjeet Singh himself was responsible for the accident. The magistrate accepted the report and dismissed the case.

Sukhdev Singh, dissatisfied with the outcome, filed a protest petition before the magistrate, which was not entertained. He then challenged the closure report in the revisional court. The revisional court, while upholding the magistrate's order, directed the magistrate to consider Sukhdev Singh's protest petition. Subsequently, the magistrate ordered a reinvestigation based on the allegations made in the petition.

The petitioner challenged the legality of the reinvestigation order, arguing that magistrates lack the authority to order reinvestigation upon accepting a closure report. He further argued that only the informant who filed the FIR has the right to a notice from the magistrate.

Sukhdev Singh, on the other side, argued that the police investigation was flawed and sought a reinvestigation. He contended that as the legal heir of the deceased, he had the right to file a protest petition and be informed about the closure report.

Court's Observations and Conclusions:

Justice Kumar, after examining relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), observed that the CrPC does not mandate informing the victim or a relative of the deceased about the closure report unless they are the informant.

Explaining the finer intricacies of the matter the court said that when the police report in the form of a closure report or a challan is forwarded by the officer-in charge of a Police Station under subsection (2) of 173 CrPC comes up for consideration before the Magistrate he has the option to accept or reject them.

“..if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant is not prejudicially affected. Nor is the injured or any relative of the deceased aggrieved. However, when the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and proposed to drop the proceedings, or takes the view that, though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in the FIR, the informant would certainly be prejudiced”, the court recorded.

In light of this reasoning, the court referenced Bhagwant Singh vs Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 and observed that, in the absence of any provision in the CrPC or from the standpoint of principles of natural justice, any obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to the injured person or to the relative of the deceased for providing such person an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report is not spelt out.

However, it underscored that the injured person or the relative of the deceased is not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, but he can appear before the Magistrate and make his submissions when the report is considered by the Magistrate to decide what action he should take on the report.

Mechanism To Deal With Protest Petitions

Deliberating on the mechanism a magistrate may adopt when he considers a protest petition filed by the informant upon notice or by the complainant without notice and is persuaded by the contents of the protest petition and the material placed therewith not to accept the closure report and take cognizance instead, Justice Kumar stated that in such situation the Magistrate would be taking cognizance on the police report and would not be required to proceed under Section 200/201 CrPC.

Elucidating further on the matter Justice Kumar noted that if a Magistrate accepts the police closure report but the protest petition meets the criteria for a complaint and allows for a second complaint on the same facts and offense, the Magistrate can treat it as a complaint.

In such a situation, the Magistrate will record the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, present and proceed under Chapter XVI of the Code, the court underscored.

Noting that the FIR in the instant case was filed based on information received by the police, the court held that there was no requirement to notify the informant or the deceased's relative when the case was closed.

Observing that when the father of the deceased filed a protest petition the magistrate had already closed the proceedings and couldn't have revisited his own closure order. However, he could have treated the protest petition as a formal complaint, provided it met the necessary criteria and this aspect was not considered by the magistrate, the court highlighted.

Finding fault with the Magistrate's decision to order reinvestigation instead of treating the protest petition as a new complaint, which it deemed unlawful under CrPC provisions barring courts from reviewing their own orders the court allowed the petition, overturning both the Revisional Court's and Magistrate's orders.

It declared any subsequent police investigation under the Magistrate's directive illegal and non-existent and granted respondent Sukhdev an option to file a fresh complaint, which the Magistrate must consider on its merits and in accordance with the law.

Finally, the bench directed that the judgment be circulated for guidance to all Magistrates and Sessions Judges in the Union Territory.

Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

Mr. Parag Sharma Advocate appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Surinder Singh Advocate represented the respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment