HC surprised over closure of FIR by Magistrate

May 12, 2016 12:00 am | Updated 05:49 am IST - MADURAI:

The Madras High Court Bench here has expressed surprise over a Judicial Magistrate having ordered closure of a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the police in a forgery case despite not being empowered to do so legally.

Disposing of a petition filed by the complainant seeking a direction to Nagamalaipudukottai police here to file a final report as expeditiously as possible, Justice P.N. Prakash wondered how the Magistrate could have ordered closure of a FIR related to a serious offence.

“This court is indeed surprised as to how the learned Magistrate shall close the prosecution for offences under Sections 419 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and 120b (criminal conspiracy) which are not summons cases but warrant cases,” the judge said.

He also pointed out that Section 167(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the legal provision under which the Magistrate had ordered closure of the FIR, could be invoked by the judicial officer only in summons cases (those relating to minor offences triable by the Magistrate without referring them to Sessions courts).

Further, the Magistrate can pass such an order only if the police had not concluded the investigation and filed a final report within six months from the date on which the accused was arrested and also if the investigating officer had failed to establish the need for continuing the investigation beyond six months.

Insofar as the present case was concerned, the Magistrate had found that the final report had not been filed even after one year since the FIR was presented in the court on December 12, 2013. Hence, he had directed the police to stop further investigation and closed the FIR.

Not in agreement with the order passed by the Magistrate, the judge disposed of the petitioner’s application, seeking a direction to the police to file a final report at the earliest, after according him liberty to challenge the Magistrate’s order passed on December 2, 2014.

Court wonders how closure could be ordered given the serious nature of the offence

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.