HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 26.07.2021

Pronounced on: 06.08.2021

CRMC No. 389/2014

IA No. 451/2014

Mohd. Shawl Khan

...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Shanum Gupta, Advocate

v/s

<

State of J&K and others

.....Respondent (s)

't

Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG

Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate for

complainant

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of

Closure report titled <State vs. Nemo=, being file No. 3/IKHT dated 31.01.2013

arising out of FIR bearing No. 5/2012 registered with Police Station Bahu Fort,

Jammu for commission of offence under section 366 RPC and also order dated

25.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu

by virtue of which the closure report has been accepted.

2.

The petitioner has sought quashing of the Closure report as well as

order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile

Magistrate, Jammu only on the ground that the petitioner was not served with a

notice by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu before

accepting the Closure report.

NEHA KUMARI

2021.08.06 16:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2 CRMC No. 389/2014

3.

Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has

vehemently argued that the petitioner has not been heard by the learned Special

Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu before passing order impugned.

4.

Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG submits that the order

impugned has been correctly passed.

5.

Heard and perused the record.

6.

From the record, it is evident that the petitioner herein lodged FIR

bearing No. 5/2012 with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu for commission of

offence under section 366 RPC and during the course of investigation, the

statement of the missing girl was also recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C by

the court of learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu on 21.12.2012 and in her

statement, she has never deposed that she was ever abducted by accused,

namely, Parmeet Singh. After recording the statement of the girl, the closure

report was filed, that also contains statement of the petitioner recorded under

section 161 Cr.P.C. When a girl herself made a statement that she was never

abducted then only option before the Investigating Officer was to file closure.

7.

A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the petitioner herein

despite notice, did not choose to appear before the court and as such, the court

was left with no other option but to accept the closure report. Learned Special

Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu while accepting the closure report has

accorded due consideration to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under

section 164-A Cr.P.C and has also observed that despite summons issued to the

complainant-petitioner herein, he did not turn up and as such, in view of the

statement of the girl, the closure report was accepted.

8.

The petitioner herein has not been able to demonstrate as how the

order passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu is bad

NEHA KUMARI

2021.08.06 16:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3 CRMC No. 389/2014

in eye of law, particularly when the prosecutrix herself has stated that she was

never abducted by the accused as well as co-accused and also even otherwise,

assuming the contention of the petitioner is to be true th