A complainant's right to file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. remains intact even after a Magistrate accepts a closure report.

JUDGMENT

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)--The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 22.07.2020 passed in Crl. Rev. P. No. 121/2019 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Revisional Court has upheld the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide which the closure report was accepted and the protest petition filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts, as noted by the Revisional Court, are as under :-

"2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the revisionist herein has registered FIR bearing No. 323/99, under Section 403/406/467/468/419/420/120-B IPC, PS Connaught Place, New Delhi for forgery of his signatures on the application forms for opening the bank accounts in Bank of Madura Ltd., and Bank of Punjab Ltd. against respondents No. 2 to 5 herein. It is stated that a partnership firms under the name and style of M/s. Ropas International and M/s. Continental Films were being run by the revisionist, his brother namely Anil Kapoor and his mother Sarla Devi as partners and in order to expand their business, revisionist had gone to abroad and remained there from the year 1989 till 30.03.1998, except for the period from 25.09.1994 to 05.10.1994.

That revisionist used to send the sale proceeds of the aforesaid partnership firms from abroad to the bank accounts of the said partnership firms and in the year 1998, when he came to India from aboard, he came to know that the accounts in the aforesaid banks were opened by his brother and mother by forging his signatures upon the account opening forms, whereas, he had not signed the same at any point of time. It further came to his knowledge that his brother and mother had also misappropriated the amounts deposited by the revisionist in the said accounts. Therefore, the revisionist preferred complaint on the basis of the FIR registered under Section 403/406/467/468/419/42/120-B IPC against respondents No. 2 to 5 herein."

3. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained specimen signatures of the petitioner as well as the accused namely Arun Kapoor and Sarla Devi, the brother and mother of the complainant respectively. The signatures of the aforesaid persons were initially sent to FSL, Malviya, New Delhi however, as per the FSL Report dated 08.12.2000, the result was inconclusive. The FSL Report noted that the signatures on the applications for opening bank accounts were not of the petitioner, however no authorship could be fixed on respondents based on the specimen signatures collected and sent for examination. On the basis of the aforesaid, a closure report was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition dated 08.07.2004 and vide order dated 28.01.2005, the Investigating Agency was directed to conduct further investigation. Again, an investigation was carried out and expert opinion sought from FSL, Rohini, however once again, the results as per the FSL Report dated 01.02.2010 remained inconclusive. Another closure report was filed on 25.04.2013 resulting in filing of second protest petition by the petitioner. It was pointed by the petitioner that his father may have forged the signatures, and in furtherance of this suggestion, the specimen signatures of the petitioner's father were sent to CFSL, Chandigarh. On petitioner's request, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed CFSL, Chandigarh to examine the disputed and admitted specimen signatures of the accused persons. However, as per the results contained in FSL Report dated 20.01.2014, no conclusion could be reached that the petitioner's father had forged the signatures. This prompted the petitioner to file a third protest petition to have the specimens examined by a private forensic expert at his c