The courts will no more be fettered from reopening a case for investigation despite ordering closure based on a report submitted by the police or the CBI. Settling this law, which was open to various interpretations by several High Courts, the Supreme Court in a recent judgment held that the Magistrate will be within his powers to order a fresh investigation on a protest petition by a complainant or informant even though a closure report in the case was entertained in the past.
Victims of crime were at odds when faced against high and mighty accused who manipulated a vulnerable police system to bring the case to a halt.
A similar incident occurred in the case before the court where in a case of kidnapping from Uttar Pradesh, the police concluded that no case was made out. It even gave a clean chit to the accused by suggesting they were falsely implicated. In all, there were four accused. They were let off as the Court accepted the final report of the UP Police.
But the Magistrate entertained a protest petition by the victim simultaneously and ordered the case to continue as a complaint case under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. Summons was served on the accused and they stood trial. Under Section 200, the Magistrate is entitled to entertain a complaint, examine complainant and even call for witnesses.
In the present case, the accused raised objection as the Magistrate who had set up trial against them had already entertained the closure report by police. The Magistrate order was of November 26, 2002, following which the accused approached Allahabad High Court. the appeal was dismissed and subsequently, the accused ended up in Supreme Court.
The bench of Justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and Ranjan Gogoi noted several orders by Supreme Court in the past that supported the view taken by HC. Beginning from 1982 to as recently as in 2011, the bench held there were authoritative pronouncements that laid down the power of the Magistrate to act on a protest/complaint petition regardless of the fact that a closure report submitted earlier had been accepted.
The bench said, “In the present case, the contention advanced by the accused pertained to the question of jurisdiction alone. It was urged that having accepted the final report, the Magistrate had become ‘functus officio’ and was denuded of all power to proceed in the matter.” Quoting relevant portions from the past SC decisions, the bench said, “the clear exposition of law would leave no manner of doubt that the answer to the question posed by the High Court is correct.”
However, the Court refused to examine under what circumstances such power could be exercised since the accused had argued only with regard to Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
