To deter people from filing false cases, the Allahabad High Court has ordered initiating legal proceedings against complainant and witnesses of false FIRs at the time of the filing of final or closure report, failing which the investigating officer (IO), the Station House Officer (SHO), the Circle Officer (CO) and the prosecuting officer would face departmental and contempt of court proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri also directed the Director General of Police to instruct all police officers that while exonerating the accused in the final report, they should also submit a written complaint against the informant and witnesses of the case.
“… while completing the investigation, if a final report (closure report) exonerating the accused is submitted in the court, then in every case, where the police machinery has been misused by furnishing false, frivolous, or misleading information, a written complaint must be filed before the competent Magistrate/Court of offence against the informant and witnesses of the case crime,” the High Court ordered.
The High Court also said that if its observation “is not followed in letter and spirit, it would amount to contempt of court, and the aggrieved person may approach this Court for appropriate action against such contemptuous conduct of the police authorities as well as the judicial officers”.
“All the exercise shall be done within 60 days from the date of this order by the police authorities as well as the judicial officers to regulate judicial proceedings in accordance with law,” the High Court ordered.
The Bench of Justice Giri passed the order on a petition filed by one Umme Farva seeking the quashing of the summons issued by the Aligarh Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in a marital dispute case.
Farva’s ex-husband, Mahmood Ali Khan, had filed a case of criminal intimidation, threat, and defamation against her in Aligarh in 2023 amid the custody battle of their daughter. Later, the IO filed a closure report, saying no material evidence was found against Farva. However, Khan moved the court of Aligarh Chief Judicial Magistrate against the closure report filed by the IO. The court took cognisance of Khan’s plea and issued summons to Farva, who then moved the High Court, seeking the quashing of the summons.
Story continues below this ad
In its order quashing the summons, the High Court Bench of Justice Giri took note of the IO filing a closure report but not submitting a written complaint of offence against Khan for furnishing false information.
“If, after the investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that no such incident occurred as alleged in the FIR or NCR, the Investigating Officer is under a statutory obligation, not only to submit a final report/closure report but also to submit a report of offence in the form of a complaint for taking cognizance. Otherwise, the concerned police officers are liable for committing an offence as mentioned under section 199 (b) BNS (public servant disobeying legal direction knowingly),” the High Court observed in its order.
The High Court also directed all Judicial Magistrates or Courts that in case a closure report is submitted in favour of the alleged accused, the learned Judicial Magistrates/Courts shall receive the entire case diary along with documents and the closure report. “But, the Judicial Magistrates/Courts shall also direct the Investigating Officer/Police for submitting written complaint against informant, as well as witnesses of the FIR in respect of furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of the alleged accused persons, whose names are mentioned in the first information report as well as during investigation,” the High Court directed.
“The learned Judicial Magistrate shall not accept the Final Report, if the same is not accompanied with a written complaint, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate,” the High Court ordered.
Story continues below this ad
In Farva’s case, the High Court said the Aligarh Judicial Magistrate “erroneously passed cognizance-cum-summoning order for a non-cognizable offence”.
The High Court further stated that the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant without affording an opportunity of hearing, and also erroneously proceeded with the trial.
“In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order dated October 3, 2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby quashed and set aside,” the High Court ordered.
