Ruchika case: CBI special court dismisses Anand Prakash’s revision petitions
CBI special court of Haryana, in Panchkula on Wednesday dismissed Anand Prakash’s revision petitions filed against the acceptance of closure reports in the case of custodial torture of Ruchika’s brother Ashu Girhotra and forging of signatures of her father SC Girhotra on her post mortem report. HT reports.india Updated: Jan 30, 2013 22:48 IST
CBI special court of Haryana, in Panchkula on Wednesday dismissed Anand Prakash’s revision petitions filed against the acceptance of closure reports in the case of custodial torture of Ruchika’s brother Ashu Girhotra and forging of signatures of her father SC Girhotra on her post mortem report.
After CBI filed the closure reports, CBI special magistrate of Haryana, had accepted them on June 1, 2012, as both Ashu and his father SC Girhotra did not object to the findings.
Anand Prakash, who is a family friend of Ruchika’s family, submitted that he was one of the complainants in the case along with the Girhotras based upon which the FIR was registered, but CBI magistrate accepted the report without giving him the notice by “throwing all norms and rules of natural justice to the winds”.
What the order says?
CBI special judge Najar Singh ruled that Prakash “has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity” in the CBI Magistrate’s order.
He added that “the order passed by the learned Special Magistrate does not cause any affect on the right/remedy available to the revisionist (Anand Prakash). If the revisionist has any grievance, the same can be redressed in the manner provided in the law”.
The order also settled that whether Anand Prakash being the “signatory” on complaints is required to be heard when on notice the complainants ( Ashu and his father SC Girhotra) had pleaded no objection to accept the closure reports.
CBI special judge clarified that as per law notice to the “informer” in the case was mandatory but said that in this case Anand Prakash was “merely an alleged signatory of the application, so he cannot be termed as an informer, victim or the complainant”.
The judge said that though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, the signatory “has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report” and if he wanted to make submissions in regard to the report, the learned Magistrate is bound to hear him.
The judge further clarified that Magistrate might in the exercise of his discretion, if he thinks fit, could give notice to the signatory or to any particular relative of the complainant. “But not giving such notice will not have any invalidating effect [sic] on the order.”