Can’t order re-probe merely because complainant party is dissatisfied: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 20

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reminded the subordinate courts that reinvestigation of a criminal case could not be ordered merely because the complainant party was discontented with the closure report filed by the investigating agency.

“The dissatisfaction of the complainant party qua the cancellation report is a normal instinct and that criteria alone cannot form the basis for ordering further investigation,” the High Court has asserted.

The assertion by Justice Raj Mohan Singh came in a case where a Judicial Magistrate (First Class) rejected the cancellation report submitted by the investigating officer in a murder and criminal conspiracy case and remitted the matter for further investigation.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh asserted the perusal of the impugned order would show that only consideration by the trial court was the dissatisfaction of the complainant party. It was settled principle of law that the court, dealing with the cancellation report, was required to record its own satisfaction, while accepting or rejecting the same. The court could reject the report by giving reasons. It could, in the process, also refer the matter for further investigation. The court could also take cognisance of its own as well. But it could not reject the cancellation report merely on the ground that the complainant was not satisfied with the investigation.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh added it was true that the Magistrate, while accepting or rejecting the cancellation report, could not compel investigating agency to change its opinion, to form a particular opinion or to submit the challan or the final investigation report. But the court could certainly give reasons for directing the police to undertake further investigation.

“While rejecting the cancellation report, the Magistrate is duty bound to record its own satisfaction, instead of accepting mere disagreement of the complainant. It is not the satisfaction of the complainant, which would ultimately matter, but it is the satisfaction of the court that would be the relevant factor for acceptance or rejection of the cancellation report,” Justice Raj Mohan Singh added.

Before parting with the order, Justice Raj Mohan Singh further added it would be just and appropriate to direct the Judicial Magistrate to revisit the issue and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The Bench also ordered setting aside of the impugned order on the sole ground of non-recording of satisfaction by the trial court.