The return of a closure report by a Magistrate not aligning with legal provisions is deemed unlawful and must be reconsidered as per Section 169 Cr.P.C.

ORDER

This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) in MJCR No.32/2023 by which the closure report filed by Police has been returned back on the ground that the closure report appears to be an Expunge Report under Police Regulation No.787 and accordingly the same may be presented before the CJM, District Datia.

2. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that there is no word like Expunge Report in Cr.P.C. /BNSS. Whenever the Police finds that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case, then Section 169 Cr.P.C./189 BNSS would come into picture which allows the police to release an accused if they find no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case and thus the Police is required to submit a final report under Section 169 Cr.P.C./189 BNSS indicating that although the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN investigation has been concluded but sufficient grounds could not be found for prosecution. It is submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha and others Vs. Dinesh Mishra reported in AIR 1968 SC 117, once the closure report is filed, the Magistrate will have only three options i.e. (i) either to accept the closure report (ii) to reject the closure report and to take cognizance (iii) to direct for further investigation after rejecting the closure report.

It is submitted that whenever a closure report is filed, the Magistrate is under obligation to issue a show-cause notice to the complainant to enable him to file protest petition and relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and another reported in AIR 1985 SC 1285

3. Per contra, counsel for State after relying upon the status report, submitted that after the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 was passed, the diary was sent for preparing the Expunge Report. The case-diary was handed over to the in-charge police outpost Udi on 24.02.2025 and accordingly, on 26.04.2025 a request was sent for sanctioning the Expunge Report and now by order dated 19.05.2025, the permission to file Expunge Report has been granted and now the Expunge report would be submitted.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The concerning Magistrate has treated the Final Report as an Expunge Report as provided under Police Regulation 787. There is no word like closure report or expunge report in Cr.P.C. The Magistrate before holding that the report which has been filed by the Police appears to be an expunge report under the Police Regulation No.787 did not consider the meaning of closure report as well as expunge report. Whenever the Police comes to a conclusion that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN evidence is insufficient, then it has to file a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C./189 BNSS. Under these circumstances, it has to be treated as closure report by whatever nomenclature the Court may use. Once the closure report is filed then in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) the concerning Magistrate has to issue notice to the complainant and after considering the protest petition, the Magistrate has to pass an order as per the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha (supra)

6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the return of the final report which was filed under Section 169 Cr.P.C./189 BNSS by the JMFC, Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) in MJCR No.32/2023 is hereby set aside. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) is directed to c