The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may not interfere if the investigation is complete and a challan has been presented in court, and that the petitioner may have a remedy available under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if still aggrieved.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - By way of instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.5.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon (Annexure P/1), by which the learned Magistrate has accepted the untraceable report submitted by the police without issuing any notice to the complainant/petitioner and also seek for transferring the investigation to the C.B.I.

2. The brief facts leading to the controversy involved in the instant petition, as averred, are that on 15.12.2013 a zero FIR under Sections 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 13-C of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came to be lodged against the CEO, Editor-in-Chief of the News Nation, News 24 and India News, including its Executive President, Senior Executive Editor and certain unknown persons at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, on the statement of the petitioner. It was alleged therein that on 2.7.2013, Asaram Bapu (a religious guru) had visited the petitioner's house and had blessed his family, including his 10 years old niece. On this occasion, one of the devotees had shot a video. However, on 12.12.2013, when the petitioner was present at home, he saw that News Nation Channel was telecasting a video clip showing Asaram's hand moving all over the body of his niece. In was alleged that in fact Asaram, while blessing his niece had placed his hand on her shoulder, but the said video was morphed and tampered in such a way intentionally to bring disgrace to the whole family of the petitioner. It was also alleged that petitioner's wife Shilpi was shown as a mastermind of a sex racket and their faces were not blurred. It was alleged that after telecast of this video, the neighbours and relatives started commenting against the petitioner's whole family, which deeply hurt their religious feelings. Even the students in the school passed comments upon the niece of the petitioner on account of which she suffered extreme mental agony.

3. Since the zero FIR was transferred to Police Station 39, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, Deepak Chaurasia, Chief Editor of India News and others moved two separate petitions for quashing the FIR before Allahabad High Court, which were dismissed. It is stated that since Noida Police was not taking any action against the accused inspite of dismissal of quashing petitions, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint against the accused persons. Consequently, the petitioner filed a fresh complaint reiterating the same set of allegations as made in zero FIR, on the basis of which FIR No. 147 dated 19.3.2015 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 469, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 67- B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 13-C of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. It is alleged that after two years from the registration of the new FIR (No. 147), on 7.4.2017 the Investigating Agency had filed an “untraceable Report” stating that they are not able to find/trace the identity of the accused persons. It is further alleged that the police never informed the petitioner about filing of the closure report. However, on the matter being agitated by the petitioner with the help of the NGOs, the FIR was re- opened on 24.7.2017 and a fresh SIT was constituted for conducting investigation into the matter. Still not satisfied with the investigation being done by the SIT, the petitioner filed a petition in this Court for fair investigation of the case in a stipulated time frame, which was disposed of with a direction to the police to take a final view in the matter within four weeks. It is stated that when the investigation was not concluded within the time frame granted by this Court, on a contempt petition being filed, the respondents filed a reply stating that the police had already filed an “untr