Complainant may seek relief against an accepted final report through a reasoned application.

The petitioner, the de-facto complainant, challenged the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 21 February 2023 accepting the police final report in Daspur P.S. Case No. 257 of 2018, registered under Sections 406 and 34 of the IPC.

She contended that the final report had been accepted without notice to her, depriving her of an opportunity to seek further investigation.

The State submitted that repeated attempts to serve notice had failed because her proper address could not be traced.

The Magistrate’s order recorded that the de-facto complainant was absent, the notice was unserved, and her proper address could not be traced.

Whether the Magistrate acted illegally or improperly by accepting the final report when notice of the proceedings had not been served on the de-facto complainant.

Whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place an application before the Magistrate after the final report had been accepted.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s revisional and inherent jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 482 of the CrPC.

The underlying police case concerned Sections 406 and 34 of the IPC.

The judgment cited no precedent or separate statutory test governing acceptance of a final report.

It assessed the Magistrate’s decision in light of the recorded attempts to serve notice and, in the interests of justice, directed that the petitioner be allowed to file an appropriate application for consideration by the Magistrate.

The High Court found no illegality or impropriety in accepting the final report because the record showed repeated attempts to serve notice and that service had failed because the petitioner’s proper address could not be traced.

Nevertheless, it considered that an opportunity to place an appropriate application before the Magistrate would serve the ends of justice.

It therefore provided a limited opportunity for the petitioner to file such an application, to be decided after hearing the parties.

It remanded the matter to the Magistrate with a direction to hear and decide, by a reasoned order, any appropriate application filed by the petitioner within four weeks of communication of the High Court’s order.

The revision was disposed of accordingly; any interim order was vacated, with no order as to costs.