Partly allowed

Surender Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2012CRL.REV.P./144/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order accepting a closure report without hearing the complainant. The Court held that natural justice principles were violated and set aside the order, directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to provide a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21st August, 2008 accepting the closure report in FIR No. 299/2007 was set aside. The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to give a hearing to the complainant.

Surender Kumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

¶3

dismissing the application was challenged by the Petitioner before this &,./ and this Court vide order dated 13th September, 2010 held that once^{an FIR} is registered no application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was maintainable.

¶4

In the present petition grievance of the Petitioner is not regarding invoking of Section 308 of the IPC in the FIR but the fact that after investigation a closure report was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 21't August, 2008 accepted the said report without issuance of^notice to^the Petitioner who was the complainant in the FIR. Aggrieved by the order dated 21" August, 2008 the Petitioner filed an appeal before the learned ASJ who dismissed the appeal stating that while disposing of the Criminal Revision Petition 56012010 though this Court observed that the remedy available to the Petitioner in a case where the closure was accepted without serving him a notice was some other and not an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C however this Court had issued no such direction.

¶5

Be that as it may, against the order of acceptance of closure report the remedy of appeal was not available to the Petitioner.^{The Petitionerafter} invoking the wrong remedy is before this Court in a revision petition. In exercise of its revisional^{jurisdiction,} this Court will not^{permit an illegality} CRL,REV.P. 144/2011 page 2 of 3

¶6

being committed. The learned Metropolitan^Magistrat " ,rorrrrHrn accepting the closure report without hearing^{the complainant.Though the} Magistrate passed a detailed order while accepting the^{closurereport,} however, the essential requirement of^{principles of natural justice of hearing} the complainant has not been met.

¶7

In the facts and circumstances of the^{case,orderdated 21" August,} 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the closure report in case FIR No. 299107 under Section 308134IPC registered^{at Police} Station Sadar Bazar is set aside.^{The leamed MetropolitanMagistrateis} directed to give a hearing to the complainant before passing any order on the report filed by the Police.

¶8

The petition is disposed of.

Order dasti.

JANUARY 06,2012 tmb'

CRL.REVP. 144/2011

page 3 of3

Surender Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Sethi & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Jai Bhagwan @ Kale Vs State

Hitesh Malhotra Vs NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Hawa Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Mohd.Saleem Vs State & Anr.

Lata Besra Vs State