LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-105

JAIRAM PRASAD & ORS Vs. MANIRAM & ANR

Decided On April 04, 2017
Jairam Prasad And Ors Appellant
V/S
Maniram And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.9.2014 by which the closure report filed by the police Station Ater in Crime No.105/2009 registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC has been rejected and the police has been directed to further investigate the matter.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 for an offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC. It was alleged by the respondent No.1 that the applicants on the strength of forged Power of Attorney has sold a portion of land belonging to it. The Magistrate by order dated 21.1.2009 directed the police to submit the report and the matter remained pending awaiting the report of the police.

(3.) On 30.4.2010, the police submitted the closure report mentioning that the allegations are of civil in nature and the matter has been fought up to the High Court and no prima facie offence is made out. On 30.8.2012, the Magistrate returned the closure report filed by the police on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and fixed the case for recording of evidence of the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, the statements of the complainant and its witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. On 16.9.2014, the Magistrate rejected the closure report filed by the police and directed for further investigation. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that when a closure report is filed then the Magistrate has three options. The Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence after rejecting the closure report or he can accept the closure report or he can direct the further investigation. However, for directing for further investigation he must point out the lapses committed by the police while investigating the offence. In the present case the Magistrate did not mention as to why the further investigation is necessary and merely by saying that the final report is rejected, directed the police to further investigate the matter.