U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

By means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 17.09.2012, as also order dated 10.10.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Whereas, by former order, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed; by the latter order, the revision was allowed and order dated 17.04.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, was set aside. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had accepted the final report, vide order dated 17.04.2007.

Background facts:

2. Brief Facts giving rise to the present petition are that the husband of the applicant died in suspicious circumstances. The applicant alleged that her husband was killed by the husband of respondent no. 3. [There is no FIR to this effect]. Husband of respondent no. 3 Avinash Kumar Sharma (since deceased) lodged an FIR on 18.03.2000, at police station, Jwalapur against the applicant, her mother and brothers, under Section 306 of IPC. The matter was investigated by the police on the basis of FIR lodged by the husband of respondent no. 3 and it was found that the case against the applicant and her family members was false. A final report was submitted on 28.05.2001. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the informant Avinash Kumar Sharma, who filed a protest petition, and, on the basis of his protest petition, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the final report, vide order dated 03.11.2001, and directed the police station, Jwalapur, to further investigate into the matter. The matter was further investigated by the police and it was again found that the report filed by Avinash Kumar Sharma against the applicant and her family members was false. Consequently, a final report was submitted once again on 31.03.2006, which final report was accepted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 17.04.2007. Before accepting such final report dated 31.03.2006, vide order dated 17.04.2004, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the informant of the case, who had passed away by then. Death certificate of Avinash Kumar Sharma was placed before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Since Avinash Kumar Sharma had died and none of his family members filed any objections on the final report, therefore, the same was accepted by the Magistrate concerned.

3. A criminal revision was preferred by respondent no. 3, widow of late Avinash Kumar Sharma, against the acceptance of final report. The criminal revision was decided on 10.10.2012 by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Criminal revision was allowed, the order dated 17.04.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order, according to law, after issuing notice to the family members of the deceased informant. Aggrieved against such order dated 10.10.2012, present petition was filed by the wife of the victim. Thus the litigation is between two widows. One is the widow of the informant, who is opposing final report, and the other is the widow of the victim, the suspect, who is in favour of the ‘closure-report’.

Short question:

4. The short question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is whether in a case where FIR is lodged and after completion of investigation, initiated on the basis of FIR, the police submits a report that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate can accept the report and drop the proceedings without issuing notice to the first informant or to the injured or in case the incident has resulted in death, to the relatives of the deceased or not?

To whom the Magistrate should issue notice?

5. Whether in cases of this kind the first informant or any relative of the deceased or any other aggrieved person is entitled to be heard at the time of consideration of the report by the Magistrate and whether the Magistrate is bound to