VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case was taken up on 19.11.2019 and this Court was of the view that the record of the Court below is necessary, therefore, the same was requisitioned on administrative side being the Portfolio Judge of Distt. Morena and the case was adjourned to 20.11.2019.

(2.) Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer was heard on 20.11.2019 and the record of the Court below was perused and the case was reserved for orders. As it was projected that the police has already filed the closure report, therefore, on the administrative side, the District and Sessions Judge, Morena was directed to send the record pertaining to the proceedings of Closure report, however, by letter dated 22.11.2019, it was informed that the police has never filed the closure report due to non-service of notice on the complainant. The case diary was also sent by the J.M.F.C. Morena on administrative side on 21.11.2019.

(3.) This Court is conscious of the fact that after the dismissal of the complaint, if the order is challenged by the complainant, then the persons arrayed as accused are required to be heard. The Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517 has held as under :--