Mohd. Shawl Khan vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 835 j&K

                           HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                           AT JAMMU

                                                                       Reserved on:   26.07.2021
                                                                       Pronounced on: 06.08.2021

                                                                      CRMC No. 389/2014
                                                                      IA No. 451/2014
           Mohd. Shawl Khan                                           ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)


                                   Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                                              Mr. Shanum Gupta, Advocate

                          v/s       <




           State of J&K and others                                           .....Respondent (s)
           't




                                   Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG
                                              Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate for
                                              complainant
           Coram:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                                   JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of

Closure report titled "State vs. Nemo", being file No. 3/IKHT dated 31.01.2013

arising out of FIR bearing No. 5/2012 registered with Police Station Bahu Fort,

Jammu for commission of offence under section 366 RPC and also order dated

25.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu

by virtue of which the closure report has been accepted.

2. 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.

NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior 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.

4. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG submits that the order

impugned has been correctly passed.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner herein lodged FIR

bearing No. 5/2012 with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu 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 by

the court of learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu on 21.12.2012 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 contains 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.

7. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the petitioner herein

despite notice, did not choose to appear before the court and as such, the court

was left with no other option but to accept the closure report. 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.

8. The petitioner herein has not been able to demonstrate as how the

order passed by the learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate, Jammu is bad NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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.

9. In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is

dismissed along with connected IA.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 06.08.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No

NEHA KUMARI 2021.08.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document