Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119865

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2199 of 2023

Appellant :- Shiv Hari

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 24 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Vikas

Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Sri Devendra Singh holding brief for Shri S.N. Singh,

learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh,

learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned

A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act

has been preferred by the appellant- Shiv Hari with the prayer

to allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 22.11.2022

passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/ Additional

Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Final Report No. 32 of 2021,

arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 2020, under Sections 147,

148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 395, 354, 307, 325, 427, 447 IPC

and Section 3(1) (b) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gagaha, District

Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of

this Court towards the impugned order dated 22.11.2022

submits that the Special Court has accepted the final report

submitted by the Investigating Officer without assigning any

reason only on the basis that the informant is not present while

the duty of the Special Court was to go through the material

collected by the Investigating Officer in order to assess as to

whether there are sufficient ground/ material to take cognizance

under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C., thus patent illegality has been

committed by the Special Court and thus the order dated

22.11.2022, whereby the final report has been accepted by the

Special Court is liable to be set aside.

Learned AGA on the other hand supported the impugned order

while the opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality has been

committed by the Special Court in accepting the final report/

closure report as the appellant/ informant did not appear before

the Special Court in response to the notice issued by the Special

Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the record and keeping in view the order intended to be

passed, the service of notice of the instant proceeding to

opposite parties no.3 to 25 is hereby dispensed with as the

intended order would not be against the interest of opposite

parties no. 3 to 25.

Perusal of the record would reveal that FIR of this case was

lodged by appellant/ informant against the opposite parties no.2

to 25. The Investigating Officer after thorough investigation

has submitted the closure report/ final report. The Special Court

on receiving the final report appears to have issued notice to the

informant/ appellant. There is conflict of submission so far as

receiving of this notice is concerned the Special Court in its

order categorically stated that the notices are being issued to the

informant consecutively and the same has been served as per

the report submitted by the police Constable Vijay Yadav and

no protest petition has been filed and in this scenario the

Special Court has accepted the final report/ closure report while

the contention of learned counsel for the informant/ appellant is

that no such notice has ever been received by them.

There cannot be any proposition that the fact that in the Code

of Criminal Procedure there was no provision for issuance of

notice to the informant of a First Information Report, however,

way back in 1983 in the Constitutional Bench decision passed

in

Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police

MANU/SC/0063/1985; a mechanism was chalked out for

providing an intimation to the informant ofthe FIR on the

submission of closure report by the Investigating Officer.

However, the fact remains admitted to the parties that no protest

petition/ objection has been filed by the informant before the

Special Court challenging