Closure Report | Court Cannot Compel Investigation Agency To File Chargesheet As Per Its Opinion: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a court, while considering a closure report, cannot compel the investigating agency to file a chargesheet as per its own opinion merely because it disagrees with the agency's opinion on the outcome of the investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 381]

Observing that the opinion regarding the outcome of the investigation falls within the statutory domain of the investigating agency, the division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi observed,

"Here, it can be said that the judicial system cannot compel the Investigating Agency to form a particular opinion or to submit a charge-sheet in accordance with the opinion of the Court. The opinion as to the result of investigation remains within the statutory domain of the Investigating Agency, subject to the judicial powers available to the competent Court under law. Hence, the rejection of the closure report has to be determined in accordance with law, the Court cannot change or replace the police officer's final decision about what the investigation found".

A criminal revision was filed by a firm challenging the order of February 12, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), in which the closure report was rejected. Per the facts of the case, the MP General Administration Department sent a letter to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) regarding irregularities committed by S.M. Kumbhare, Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Ujjain.

Acting upon the said letter, the EOW found that Kumbhare purchased items worth ₹96.23 Lakhs through limited tenders instead of open tenders and also purchased materials reserved for Small Industries Corporation, like furniture, through limited tenders. It was noted by the EOW that the quotations were obtained from three firms belonging to the same person, which has caused financial loss to the Government by colluding with the supplier. 

During the investigation, it was found that Kumbhare, during his tenure, purchased equipment, which ought to have been purchased through an open tender, but he misused his position and fraudulently purchased the materials from selected firms through a limited tender at arbitrary rates higher than the market price, and was supplied by M/s Geeta Infotech Sales, M/s Hanumant Trading Company Bhopal, M/s Karan Enterprises Indore, M/s M.K. Enterprises Ratlam, M/s Swaruchi Enterprises and Fairdeal Traders. 

Thus, a crime was registered for cheating (Section 420), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of the evidence, the EOW presented the case for closure approval against Kumbhare on the ground of lack of evidence of causing financial loss to the Government. 

Referring to Rule 121 of the MP Financial Code, the petitioners argued that it mandates that materials should be thoroughly examined, counted, measured, and weighed at the time of delivery by a government servant. Thus, they argued that the government servant receiving the goods was responsible for ensuring that the quantities were accurate and satisfactory. 

The court noted that upon completion of the investigation, for the first time, a closure report was submitted to the Special Jude, but through an order of October 27, 2021, the Judge refused to accept the closure report and directed the collection of evidence and further investigation on several points. The second closure report was submitted before the Special Judge, but the same was also rejected through an order dated May 17, 2025. The Special Judge further directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation.

A criminal revision was thus preferred by the petitioner in 2025, which was disposed of with directions to the Special Judge for consideration in light of the Supreme Court order in the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117], wherein it was held that the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion expressed by the police in the final report. After remanding the matter, the Special Judge passed the impugned order of February 12, 2026, wherein the Special Judge again recorded that the closure report was not acceptable and thereafter directed further investigation substantially on the same aspects. 

In the case at hand, the bench noted that the closure report was submitted on three different occasions, which were not accepted by the Special Judge. The court noted that non-acceptance of the closure report cannot indicate that the allegations against the petitioners were proved. 

The bench noted that the primary allegation against the petitioners arises from certain irregularities in the departmental procurement process. However, the bench emphasized that

"However, a departmental irregularity, by itself, cannot be treated as proof of criminal liability. Criminal liability is personal and must be based upon specific material connecting the concerned person with the commission of the alleged offence".

Regarding the allegation under Section 420 IPC, the bench noted that the essential requirement is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction. The court noted 

"Mere irregularity in the procurement process or subsequent failure to comply with any requirement cannot, without more, constitute the offence of cheating. The material placed before the Court must show that the person concerned had dishonest or fraudulent intention from the inception and that such intention resulted in deception". 

Further, the bench noted that an allegation under Section 120B of IPC cannot be sustained merely because a person was connected with a particular transaction. Liability under criminal conspiracy requires material indicating an agreement or meeting of minds for committing any unlawful act or achieving a lawful act by unlawful means. 

The bench further clarified the distinction between departmental lapse and criminal misconduct, noting that if there is a lapse in procurement procedure, then the responsibility would lie upon the concerned officer and cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the contractors or suppliers. 

Noting that the impugned order does not depict any fresh material showing active participation of petitioners, their continued involvement in criminal proceedings cannot be justified on the basis of departmental irregularities. Thus, the bench held that the impugned order is not sustainable and therefore is set aside along with consequential proceedings. The criminal revision was allowed. 

Case Title: M/s Geeta Infotech Sales and Service v State of MP, CRR-1685-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 381

For Petitioner: Advocate Prasanna Namdeo

For State: Advocate Lokendra Joshi 

Click here to read/downlaod the Order