ORDER

1. Office objection regarding non-filing of legible copies is overruled.

This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :

“1. That, the impugned order dt. 13.10.2020 passed in MJC No.14/2018 (Annexure P/10) passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain be quashed in the interest of justice and/OR further the closure report be accepted or in alternate the learned Special Judge be directed to do so.

2. That, the entire proceeding pending before the Ld. Special Judge in MJC No. 14/2018 arising out of the FIR dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure P/4) be quashed.

3. That, the FIR dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure P/4) be quashed in the interest of justice.”

2. However, learned counsel submits that he does not press the petition so far as quashing of the FIR is concerned. That he restricts his submission insofar as impugned order dated 13.10.2020 is concerned.

3. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint was lodged against him with respect to obtaining disproportional assets. The Lokayukt registered a case in Crime No.188 of 2014 under section 13(1)(E) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation was taken up. Thereafter, the Lokayukt submitted a closure report before the Magistrate. By the impugned order, the trial Court while declining to accept the closure report, held as follows :--

^^vr% Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 19 ds izko/kku dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vafre izfrosnu leLr vfHkys[k ds lkFk] fu;ekuqlkj vkxs dh dk;Zokgh gsrq vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk yksdk;qDr mTtSu dks okil fd;k tk,A vafre izfrosnu ds lkFk vkns’k dh izfr Hksth tkosA vkns'k dh izfr ekuuh; yksdk;qDr Hkksiky e/;izns'k dks lwpukFkZ Hksth tkosA vafre izfrosnu dh izfr izdj.k esa layXu dh tkosA izdj.k dk ifj.kke iath esa ntZ dj izdj.k nkf[ky vfHkys[kkxkj gksA^^

4. It is this portion of the order by which the petitioner is aggrieved. He submits that if this Court does not accept the closure report then necessarily the direction as issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasanti Dubey v. State of M.P. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 731 vide para-20 requires to be followed. Those are the only options available to the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction and directed for obtaining sanction for seeking prosecution. Hence, he pleads that this portion of the order is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The same is defended by the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. On hearing the learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. Whether the closure report is acceptable or not is the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial Court. However, in case, if he decides to reject the closure report, the options available to him are as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasanti Dubey (supra) vide para-20 of the judgment, which reads as follows :--

“20. This position has been further reiterated and reinforced in a recent judgment of this Court delivered in Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1336, wherein it has been held that when the police submitted a final report of the investigation of the case which in colloquial term is called “closure report”, the Magistrate cannot direct the police to submit the charge-sheet. However, on the basis of the material in the charge-sheet, he may take cognizance or direct further investigation. In fact, this position is clearly laid down under sections 190 read with section 156 CrPC itself and the legal position has been time and again clarified by this Court in several pronouncements viz. in H.S. Bains v. State (UT of Chandigarh) AIR 1980 SC 1883 wherein Their Lordships have summarised the position as follows :

“1. When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he may, instead of taking cognizance at once under section 190(1)(a) direct a police investigation under section 156(3) ante :

2. Where, after completion of the investigation, the police send