Magistrate Rejecting Closure Report In A Corruption Case Cannot Straightaway Direct Police To Obtain Sanction For Prosecution: MP High Court

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla held that doing so would be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Magistrate as laid down by the Apex Court in Vasanti Dubey v. State of M.P.-

On hearing the learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. Whether the closure report is acceptable or not is the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial Court. However, in case, if he decides to reject the closure report, the options available to him are as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasanti Dubey (supra)…The Magistrate, on the other hand, has proceeded to direct for obtaining sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. It is this portion of the order, in our considered view, that becomes unsustainable.

Facts of the case were that the Applicant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigating the matter, the Lokayukt filed the closure report. However, the lower court declined to accept the report and further directed the State to obtain sanction for prosecuting the Applicant. Aggrieved, the Applicant moved an application under Section 482 CrPC.

The Applicant submitted that the direction to obtain sanction for prosecuting him was illegal. Placing reliance on the decision in the Vasanti Dubey case, it was further argued that the lower court acted beyond its scope of jurisdiction while dealing with the closure report. Therefore, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the arguments put forth by the Petitioner. It opined that to decide whether the closure report is acceptable is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Having said that, they could proceed further in only one of three ways as described by Supreme Court in Vasanti Dubey case, which are as follows-

i. They may accept the report and drop the proceeding by dismissing the complaint

ii. If they don't agree with the closure report, they may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine the complainant under Section 200 CrPC

iii. Despite disagreeing with the police report, they may either take cognizance at once upon the complaint, direct an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC and after such enquiry, take action under Section 203 CrPC.

The Magistrate can't, however, direct the police to straightaway submit the charge-sheet when the police submits a closure report.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the impugned order called for its interference. Accordingly, the direction by the lower court to the State to obtain sanction for prosecuting the Appellant was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the court below for reconsideration in the context of the observations made in Vasanti Dubey case.