A Magistrate must provide the informant or complainant an opportunity to be heard before accepting a police closure report; failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

11/05/2026

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Singh, petitioner appearing in person, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State, and also appearing for respondent No.5/Enforcement Directorate.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred calling in question legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 28.04.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba in Crime No.1085/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Korba for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the closure report submitted by the police has been accepted. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier vide order dated 20.02.2026, the learned CJM had rejected the closure report holding that acceptance of closure report was not proper in view of conflicting demarcation reports and incomplete investigation, however, subsequently by the impugned order dated 28.04.2026, the very same closure report has been accepted without conducting any further investigation and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his mother, who is the complainant in the FIR.

3. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims title and possession over land bearing Khasra No.663/3 on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 19.03.1991 executed in favour of his grandfather Late Shri Ramgulam Dubey. Alleging manipulation and forgery in revenue records and fraudulent demarcation shifting the location of the land, FIR bearing Crime No.1085/2020 came to be registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. During investigation, closure report was filed by the police. The learned JMFC, Korba vide order dated 10.11.2025 rejected the closure report observing that investigation was superficial and material aspects relating to forgery and revenue entries were not properly investigated. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.02.2026, the learned CJM again refused to accept the closure report and directed filing of charge-sheet after proper investigation.

******* It is further pleaded that against the proceedings relating to the closure report, WP(Cr.) No.221/2026 was filed before this Court and vide order dated 22.04.2026, this Court directed the concerned Magistrate to pass appropriate order after hearing all necessary parties. According to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid direction, no notice was issued either to the petitioner or to his mother and without granting any opportunity of hearing, the learned CJM passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 accepting the closure report. It is also contended that while accepting the closure report, the learned CJM travelled beyond jurisdiction by deciding disputed questions relating to title and location of land instead of confining herself to examination of existence of prima facie criminal offences relating to forgery and fabrication of revenue records.

4. Petitioner appearing in person would submit that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional error inasmuch as the learned CJM has virtually reviewed and recalled her earlier final order dated 20.02.2026, which is impermissible in law in view of Section 362 CrPC/Section 403 BNSS. He would submit that once the learned Magistrate had rejected the closure report and directed further course of action, the same could not ha