Closure is absolutely essential for all cases; it is also necessary to occur with the consent of all parties involved. However, if one closes not to appear despite the notice provided, he/she forgoes their right to consent for closure. This was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE, in the matter Mohd. Shawl Khan V. State of J&K and others dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed for quashing of Closure report titled “State vs. Nemo”.
The petitioner has sought quashing of the Closure report as well as order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu only on the ground that the petitioner was not served with a notice by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu before accepting the Closure report. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has not been heard by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu before passing order impugned.
AAG submited that the order impugned has been correctly passed. Petitioner had lodged FIR for commission of offence under section 366 RPC and during the course of investigation, the statement of the missing girl was also recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and in her statement, she has never deposed that she was ever abducted by accused, namely, Parmeet Singh. After recording the statement of the girl, the closure report was filed, that also contained statement of the petitioner recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. When a girl herself made a statement that she was never abducted then only option before the Investigating Officer was to file closure.
Learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu while accepting the closure report has accorded due consideration to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and has also observed that despite summons issued to the complainant-petitioner herein, he did not turn up and as such, in view of the statement of the girl, the closure report was accepted.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Jammu High court dismissed the petition as The petitioner was not able to demonstrate as how the order passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu is bad in eye of law, particularly when the prosecutrix herself has stated that she was never abducted by the accused as well as co-accused and also even otherwise, assuming the contention of the petitioner is to be true that he was not aware about the filing the closure report, even in that case, it would not make any difference as once the prosecutrix i.e. missing girl, who herself stated that she was not abducted, the Investigating Officer was under obligation to close the said FIR as not admitted and file the closure report.