Closure Report Cannot Be Filed Merely Because Informant Did Not Supply Adequate Materials To Investigate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a closure report cannot be filed merely on the ground that the investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate.

A fair investigation is  a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, said the bench headed by Justice RF Nariman, while setting aside closure reports against some accused in a murder case. The court observed that it is the statutory as well as constitutional duty of  the police to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence.

In this case, the police had filed a closure report against one of the accused on the ground that there was no concrete evidence of conspiracy against him and that the informant had not placed any materials before the police direct or indirect with regard to the conspiracy. The bench also comprising Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari observed:

We are constrained to record that the investigation and the closure report are extremely casual and perfunctory in nature. The investigation and closure report do not contain any material with regard to the nature of investigation against the other accused including respondent no.5 for conspiracy to arrive at the conclusion for insufficiency of evidence against them. The closure report is based on the ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer. The supervision note of the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), in the circumstances leaves much to be desired. The investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate. The police has the primary duty to  investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence. This is a statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied. To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate, to our mind, is a preposterous statement, coming from the police.

In this regard, the bench referred to judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary (2014) 2 SCC 532. The Court also appointed Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S. as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation in the matter through a team of competent officers to be selected by him of his own choice. While setting aside the closure report as against the accused, the bench further observed:

The police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in accordance with law as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police. Once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has not investigated properly or apparently is remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation  to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law. If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the contours of the law, it cannot amount to interference with investigation. A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police.

CASE:  AMAR NATH CHAUBEY vs. UNION OF INDIA [ SLP (CRL.) NO.6951 OF 2018 ]
CORAM: Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari
 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment