(1.) Due to Commonality of the issues involved in both the cases being CRR 1727 of 2020 and CRR 1466 of 2020, both the applications are disposed by this common order. The accused persons being accused no. 1 to 8 filed CRR 1727 of 2020 and the other accused person being accused no.9 separately filed CRR 1466 of 2020 under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) seeking quashing of aforesaid proceeding. Both the Applications, relate to New Town Police Station Case No. 238 of 2019.
(2.) Petitioners case is that the petitioners, from a notice dtd. 12/9/2020 under Sec. 41 A of Cr.P.C. came to know that the opposite party no. 2 herein, initiated a criminal proceeding against them at New Town Police Station. From the record of the case it reveals that the First Information Report (FIR) in connection with aforesaid New Town Police Station case, earlier culminated into FRT (investigation closure report). However, said final report regarding closure of investigation dtd. 31/10/2019 was challenged by filing a Naraji petition, copy of which never served upon the petitioners herein.
(3.) Petitioners' further contention is that subsequently the court below allowed said Naraji petition without hearing petitioners/accused persons and directed for further investigation of the case under Sec. 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. According to the petitioners said order is illegal per se, since learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the said final report dtd. 31/10/2019 was challenged by the opposite party No.2/defacto complainant on vague grounds that vital witnesses were not examined whereas in the final report dtd. 31/10/2019 being no. 485 of 2019, it has been clearly mentioned in column 17 that the investigating officer had several time served notice under Sec. 161 and 91 of Cr.P.C. on the opposite party no. 2 herein, but he did not turn up. The court below failed to appreciate that the complaint was vague and without any particulars or document, evidencing any offence nor any medical document has been disclosed evidencing the occurrence of the alleged offence. In fact the allegations made against the petitioners are false and frivolous. The opposite party no. 2/complainant is the father in law of accused no. 1 Smt. Neha Khaitan and accused no. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of accused no.1/Neha. Accused no. 4 and 5 are brother and sister and accused no. 6 and 7 are uncles of accused no.1/ Neha Khaitan. Accused no. 9 is the married sister of Neha and accused no. 8 is the husband of accused no. 9.