The court emphasized that a trial court must adhere to directives regarding final reports and cannot order further investigations without justification, ensuring compliance with established procedures.

Order

05/08/2021

Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the material available on record.

The petitioner Gagandeep Singh has approached this Court by way this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.06/2012 registered at Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar and further investigation sought to be carried out in connection therewith despite eight investigating officers having submitted negative final reports after thorough investigation and reinvestigation of the case.

Facts in nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of this misc. petition are noted herein below.

The accused petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of preferring misc. petition No.835/2017 seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. When the Court was considering the said misc. petition, it was apprised that eight different police officers had investigated the case thoroughly and had come to a conclusion that no offence was made out from the allegations levelled by the complainant. Despite that, the investigation had been reopened without any justification. The Court was also apprised that after further investigation, a fresh negative final report had been submitted in the Court of the ACJM, Padampur.

In view of these developments, this Court directed as below while disposing of the misc. petition:

“In view of this development, it is hereby directed that the learned ACJM, Padampur shall pass appropriate orderon the Final Report without directing any further investigation and after providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant. While deciding the matter, the Magistrate shall objectively consider the material presented by the investigating agency in support of the negative Final Report.

It may be stated here that in the intervening period, the complainant had also filed a misc. petition No.3405/2017 which was decided on 14.11.2017 with an observation that the complainant may submit a representation alongwith all relevant documents to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar who shall consider the same and fair investigation shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law.

Needless to say that once this Court had directed the trial court to pass appropriate order on the negative final report without insisting for further investigation, there was no option with the Magistrate but to conclude proceedings of the final report by a reasoned lawful order. However, it appears that despite the pertinent direction of this Court, the proceedings were kept open and thus, the accused petitioner was compelled to approach the trial court and filed an application to close the matter on the negative final report. The said application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the trial court as below:

After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Sanjeet Purohit representing the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as well as Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the complainant, this Court is of the firm opinion that the observations made by the learned Magistrate in the order dated 13.10.2020 are in gross defiance of the direction given by this Court in the order dated 27.11.2017. There was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to have observed that the petitioner should approach the police officer and file a copy of the High Court’s order or an application. The Magistrate was under an obligation to pass appropriate order on the negative final report which had been submitted by the police.

On going through the material available on record, it is apparent that eight different investigating officers have conducted repeated investigations in the case. The Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan has issued a circular dated 03.08.2012 in which, the repeated change of investigation has been disapproved and it has been stipulated in Clause No.14 of the circular that investigation of one case shall not be transferred more than three times. This direction was reiterated in