Magistrate Must Assign Reasons Before Rejecting a Police Closure Report, J&K High Court Holds

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside a Poonch Magistrate’s cryptic order rejecting a Final Closure Report and ordering reinvestigation without examining the evidence or recording any reasons.

A single judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu set aside an order of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge), Poonch, on 3 July 2026, after finding that the Magistrate had rejected a Final Closure Report and directed further police investigation without examining the collected evidence, identifying any lacuna in the investigation, or recording a single reason. Justice M A Chowdhary held that a Magistrate entertaining a protest petition against a closure report is under a positive obligation to discuss the evidence, assess whether an offence is made out, and state why the report cannot be accepted. An order silent on all of these counts is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

The FIR and the Closure Report

The dispute originated from a complaint lodged by Rimpal Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 2, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, on 9 August 2023. Sharma alleged that on 17 July 2023 the petitioners — Vishnu Kant Sharma, Sakhi Singh, and Kanik Sharma, all residents of Poonch — trespassed into his house, assaulted him and his mother, damaged his motorcycle bearing registration No. JK12 8451, and threatened to kill him.

On the same date, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Incharge of Police Station, Poonch, to register an FIR and report compliance within a week. FIR No. 133/2023 was accordingly registered for offences under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506 and 34 IPC.

After investigation, the police concluded that no offence was made out on the basis of witness statements and filed Final Closure Report No. 01/2024. The statements annexed with the closure report included those of the complainant Rimpal Kumar, his sisters Kiran Kumari and Sonika Kumari, and his mother Rita Devi.

The Protest Petition and the Impugned Order

Sharma filed a protest petition alleging that the Investigating Officer had changed the statements of his mother and two other witnesses with malafide intent. He attributed this to the influence of SSP Ashok Sharma, whom he described as a batchmate of the SSP, Poonch, and a close relative of the petitioners.

The Special Mobile Magistrate accepted the protest petition by order dated 7 September 2024. The closure report was returned to Police Station, Poonch, for further investigation, with a direction that the SHO either investigate the case personally or assign investigation to any other IO not below the rank of Sub Inspector.

The three petitioners challenged this order before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which vests inherent jurisdiction in the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Magistrate had passed the impugned order without assigning reasons and had given credence to bare, unsubstantiated allegations against a senior police officer. They pointed out that SSP Ashok Sharma was the maternal uncle of petitioner No. 1 and was also a relative of the complainant himself — a fact they said was ignored.

The petitioners described their backgrounds: petitioner No. 1 is a postgraduate who had cleared his PhD entrance examination for the University of Patiala; petitioner No. 2 is a businessman at Poonch; and petitioner No. 3 is also a postgraduate. None of them had a prior criminal record. Their case was that the complaint was filed to pressure them in a pre-existing land boundary dispute over already partitioned shares of land, not to seek genuine redress for any assault.

Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 (Union Territory of J&K through the SHO, Police Station, Poonch), supported the petition. He submitted that the police had investigated the matter and laid the final report before the court below for acceptance, and that the Magistrate had not pointed out how the investigation was deficient before directing its repetition.

Respondent No. 2 — Sharma — refused to accept notice, so the matter was taken up for final consideration.

The High Court’s Reasoning

Justice Chowdhary examined the impugned order and found it to be “cryptic,” passed “without assigning any reason.” The Magistrate had made no observation on the evidence collected during investigation, had not identified any lacuna or infirmity in the investigation, and had not commented on the merits of the closure report at all.

The Court set out what a Magistrate is required to do in this situation. When a protest petition is filed against a Final Closure Report, the Magistrate must discuss the evidence collected and assign reasons as to whether, on the basis of that evidence, any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate must also address whether the prosecution failed to collect evidence that would have been relevant, or whether the investigation was not conducted in a fair and legal manner.

On the specific allegation that the IO had tampered with witness statements, the Court said the minimum obligation was to summon those witnesses, confront them with their recorded statements, and satisfy itself that the statements had in fact been altered. The Magistrate did none of this.

The Court then referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Assistant Commissioner v. M/s Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785. That decision holds that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice, that every litigant is entitled to know the reasons for the grant or rejection of their prayer, and that a judgment without reasons prejudices the party against whom it is pronounced by depriving them of the ability to formulate adequate grounds before a higher court. The Supreme Court had also observed in that case that “reasons are soul of orders.”

Applying that standard, Justice Chowdhary recorded that the impugned order was passed “without any reason, whatsoever” and was therefore unsustainable.

Order

Justice M A Chowdhary allowed CRM(M) No. 745/2024 on 3 July 2026. The order dated 7 September 2024 of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge), Poonch, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the court below for information and compliance.

The order is marked as speaking and reportable.