First informant's hearing right before acceptance of a closure report; no corresponding right for non-informant victims or relatives.

When a police closure report states that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate must give notice to the first informant and hear him before accepting the report and dropping the proceeding. The statutory scheme recognises the informant's continuing interest in the progress and result of the investigation, so denial of hearing at that stage is not permissible. By contrast, an injured person or a relative of the deceased who is not the informant has no right as of course to notice. Such person may be heard if he appears, and the Magistrate may issue notice in discretion, but absence of notice does not invalidate the order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, when a police report states that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate must give notice to the first informant before accepting the report and dropping the proceeding. (ii) Whether an injured person or a relative of the deceased, if not the informant, is entitled as of right to notice and hearing when such report is considered.

Issue (i): Whether, when a police report states that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate must give notice to the first informant before accepting the report and dropping the proceeding.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Chapter XII shows that the informant remains directly concerned with the progress and result of the investigation. A copy of the first information is to be supplied to the informant, notice is required if the police decide not to investigate, and the action taken together with the report under Section 173 is to be communicated to the informant. When the Magistrate considers a report under Section 173 and proposes not to take cognizance or to drop the proceeding, the informant's interest in the outcome of the prosecution is materially affected. To deny him a hearing at that stage would be inconsistent with the statutory recognition of his continuing interest in the case.

Conclusion: The Magistrate must give notice to the first informant and afford an opportunity of hearing before deciding to accept a closure report and drop the proceeding.

Issue (ii): Whether an injured person or a relative of the deceased, if not the informant, is entitled as of right to notice and hearing when such report is considered.

Analysis: No such obligation can be derived either from the Code or from natural justice in favour of a person who is not the informant. Such a person may still appear before the Magistrate if he otherwise comes to know that the report is being considered, and if he appears the Magistrate must hear him. The Magistrate may also, in discretion, issue notice to such person, but absence of notice does not invalidate the order passed on consideration of the report.

Conclusion: An injured person or a relative of the deceased, if not the informant, has no right to notice, though the Magistrate must hear such person if he appears and may issue notice in discretion.

Final Conclusion: The decision recognises a mandatory hearing right for the first informant at the stage of consideration of a police closure report, while limiting the position of injured persons or relatives who are not the informant to a non-mandatory right of appearance and hearing if they come before the Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: When a police report under Section 173 proposes that no offence appears to have been committed, the first informant must be notified and heard before the Magistrate declines cognizance or drops the proceeding, but persons other than the informant have no corresponding right to notice as of course.

---