Keeping in mind the conclusion drawn from the judicial ratios relied upon by the parties, Khan clarified that neither Pujari nor Kumar had any locus to appear and intervene in the matter and opined that they had fully crossed their limits.
“Their conduct is imperative of the fact that they have vested interests are at stake with this report,” he commented.
These initiatives, according to the magistrate, demonstrated Bhushan Kumar’s desire to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.
The Court relied upon various precedents to hold that the magistrate can ignore the closure report and take appropriate action after independently applying his mind.
“The sum and substance of all ratios may be summarized as that after receipt of any final report by the police, the magistrate may ignore the conclusion and may take appropriate action as per law after independently applying his mind. The ratios clarify that except informant/victim no other stranger is entitled to protest or appear against the report,” the Court explained.
Thereafter, noting that the law was set in motion by the informant for her personal gain, the Court chose to sideline the same as the material on record indicated commission of the offence that could be established through proper investigation.
The Court, therefore, ordered the police to conduct an investigation into the situation in accordance with the law. It also told the Zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to keep an eye on the inquiry.
The Court also ordered the additional public prosecutor (APP) to pursue legal action against the complainant for violating the law. It further ordered the APP to report the investigators’ actions to the Mumbai commissioner of police and the state Director General of Police.
Source: Barandbench
