Victim Must Be Heard Even Before Rejection Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a victim or complainant must be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before a court decides a closure report, even where the court ultimately rejects the report. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 216]

Holding that procedural fairness cannot be dispensed with merely because the outcome favours the victim, the Court set aside a Special Judge's order rejecting an SIT closure report and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the victim and supplying her with the closure report and accompanying material.

The development comes in an ongoing case over the unnatural death of a tribal youth, where the Special (SC/ST Atrocities Act) Court rejected the closure report submitted by the Supreme Court-constituted SIT without granting an opportunity of hearing to the victim. 

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi, relying on the Supreme Court case of Bhagwant Singh v Commissioner of Police (1985 2 SCC 537), reiterated that when the court is considering a police report seeking closure of the case, the informant must be given notice and opportunity of hearing before any final decision is taken. 

The bench further emphasized,  

"The principle enunciated in Bhagwant Singh (supra) is not a mere procedural formality but is an extension of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which constitutes one of the foundational pillars of natural justice. The right of hearing must precede the decision-making process and cannot be substituted by a post-decisional justification. Fairness in procedure requires that the affected party be given an opportunity to place its objections before the authority arrives at a conclusion". 

The dispute arose when the deceased Nilesh Adivasi filed a criminal complaint in Sagar District on July 1, 2025, but later withdrew the same along with his statements on July 14. Subsequently, on July 25, 2025, he committed suicide. His wife claimed that he had withdrawn the complaint after pressure, intimidation and harassment from the former Home Minister and his associates. 

However, the deceased's brother claimed that Govind Singh Rajput, along with three other associates were responsible. There were also claims that Rajput had hurled derogatory words at Adivasi, following which an FIR was registered against Rajput. After that, the victim was abducted, and videos surfaced which showed him sitting on the ground and bleeding in a hotel room.

The wife thereafter tried to lodge a complaint, but no action was taken by the police officials. Therefore, she approached the High Court seeking registration of an FIR and constitution of a Special Team to investigate. Her complaint was ultimately registered as an FIR on September 4, 2025, against 4 people, including Govind Singh Rajput. 

Meanwhile, Rajput sought anticipatory bail from the High Court, which was rejected. He therefore approached the Supreme Court which, looking into the discrepancies in the case, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate and submit a report to the Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention Act).

The SIT probed the matter and submitted a closure report before the Special Judge, noting a lack of sufficient evidence to proceed against Rajput and the co-accused. But the Special Judge refused to accept the report and passed consequential directions. 

The wife of the deceased then approached the High Court in the present petition, on the grounds that the closure report was considered without affording her an opportunity. Meanwhile, Govind Singh Rajput approached the High Court challenging registration of FIR and rejection of the closure report. 

The counsel for the accused Rajput contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, without detailing the reasons why the closure report was rejected. The counsel further contended that when a court disagrees with a closure report, it must examine the evidence, evaluate the investigation, and give detailed reasons. 

The counsel further contended that the SIT constituted by the Supreme Court was composed of senior IPS officers and created to ensure an independent investigation, and therefore, the judge should have recorded strong reasons before discarding its findings. 

The counsel further relied on the closure report to show that no evidence linking him to the deceased's suicide was found, and therefore, no case should continue against him.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the deceased's wife argued that as the primary complainant, she should have received a copy of the closure report, relevant investigation material and an opportunity of hearing to file objections. 

The counsel further argued that the SIT did not consider all the incidents while investigating the case. According to the wife, the original FIR, retraction by the deceased, alleged coercion, pressure and intimidation from influential persons and suicide must be seen as interconnected incidents and should have been investigated similarly. 

The counsel further argued that the SIT failed to consider key issues, including the reasons why her husband retracted his allegations in the first place or whether such retraction was coerced or voluntary. 

The counsel for the State argued that the SIT has completed its investigation and filed its report. It argued that once the closure report is filed, it is upon the court and not the police to decide whether it should be accepted or rejected. 

The bench focused on the issue of whether the complainant-victim had been allowed to participate before the closure report was considered. 

The court observed that the complainant was not merely a formal informant but the widow of the deceased. Relying on the Supreme Court case in Bhagwant Singh (supra), it highlighted that thie requirement of hearing the victim is not a mere procedural formality but flows from the doctrine of audi alteram partem, a fundamental component of natural justice. 

The court held, "The opportunity of hearing must precede the formation of judicial opinion. If the Court first arrives at a conclusion and thereafter treats the hearing requirement as unnecessary because the conclusion favours one side, the very purpose of the rule of natural justice stands defeated. The outcome of the proceeding must always be subsequent to and not antecedent to the opportunity of hearing". 

While observing that the Special Judge had ultimately rejected the closure report, a result favourable to the victim, the High Court held that procedural fairness could not be dispensed with merely because the outcome benefitted one of the parties. 

Thus, without expressing any opinions on merits, the bench quashed the Special Judge's order rejecting the closure report on the ground that Rewa Adivasi, the primary complainant, was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. 

Case Title: Govind Singh Rajpoot v State, Rewa Adivasi v State WP-10310-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 216

For Govind: Advocate Vivek Ranjan Pandey 

For Rewa: Advocate Amit Dave 

For State: Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra with Advocate CS Upadhyaya

Click here to read/download the Order