Back
2011(2) RCR(Cri) 89.2
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
Alok Singh
Sandeep -Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana -Respondents
CRR No.128 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on: 19.01.2011
Closure Report - Complainant's Right to be Heard - The court held that the complainant has the right to be heard before the closure report and discharge of the accused, even if represented by the public prosecutor.
Fact of the Case:
The police filed a closure report stating no evidence against the accused. The Magistrate accepted the report and discharged the accused without hearing the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the Magistrate's order, stating that the complainant should have been heard before accepting the closure report and discharging the accused.
Issues: Whether the complainant's right to be heard was violated before accepting the closure report and discharging the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's right to be heard is essential before accepting the closure report and discharging the accused, regardless of representation by the public prosecutor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's argument and upheld the decision that the complainant should have been heard before accepting the closure report and discharging the accused.
Alok Singh, J (Oral).
1. Brief facts of the present case are that police after investigation has filed closure report stating therein that no evidence is found against the accused – revisionist for any offence said to be committed by them in the FIR. The Magistrate on the report of the police, without hearing the complainant, has passed the order dated 4.11.2009, virtually accepting the closure report, directing the discharge of the accused.
2. Complainant has challenged the order of the Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 15.12.2010 set aside the order of the Magistrate on the technical grounds that before accepting the closure report and discharge of the accused, complainant was not heard, hence, the Magistrate shall pass a fresh order after hearing the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the complainant was a government official and was being represented by the public prosecutor, hence there was no need to summon him on the closure report/discharge report.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the complainant was not heard before accepting the closure/discharge report. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgement.
Dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
