Closure Report can not be filed merely on ground that informant did not supply adequate material
The Supreme Court has observed that a closure report cannot be filed merely on the ground that the investigation was not possible because the informant had not supplied adequate materials to the police to investigate.
In the present case (AMAR NATH CHAUBEY vs. UNION OF INDIA [ SLP (CRL.) NO.6951 OF 2018), police had filed a closure report against the accused on the ground that there was no concrete evidence against him and that the informant had not placed any direct or indirect materials before the police.
A three judges bench comprising Justice RF Nariman, Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari observed that a fair investigation is a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court stated that upon receiving information as to commission of a cognizable offence, it is the statutory as well as constitutional duty of the police to investigate the case.
While setting aside the closure report against the accused, the bench observed,
“We are constrained to record that the investigation and the closure report are extremely casual and perfunctory in nature. The investigation and closure report do not contain any material with regard to the nature of investigation against the other accused including respondent no.5 for conspiracy to arrive at the conclusion for insufficiency of evidence against them. The closure report is based on the ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer. The supervision note of the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), in the circumstances leaves much to be desired. The investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate. The police has the primary duty to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence. This is a statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied. To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate, to our mind, is a preposterous statement, coming from the police.”