No Cognizance In 'GR Case' After Accepting Closure Report, Protest Petition Treated As Complaint For Taking Cognizance: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that a Court cannot take cognizance in the General Register case ('GR case') after accepting the closure report submitted by the police due to lack of evidence. It further clarified that if the informant files any 'protest petition' against acceptance of the final form, the same may be considered as a 'complaint' [as defined under Section 2(d) of the CrPC/...
The Orissa High Court has held that a Court cannot take cognizance in the General Register case ('GR case') after accepting the closure report submitted by the police due to lack of evidence.
It further clarified that if the informant files any 'protest petition' against acceptance of the final form, the same may be considered as a 'complaint' [as defined under Section 2(d) of the CrPC/ Section 2(h) of the BNSS] and fresh cognizance may be taken on the basis of that complaint case.
While finding fault with a Magistrate's cognizance order in GR case while entertaining a protest petition, the Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash shed light on the important procedural requirement in the following words –
“...the action of the learned Magistrate in adhering to the procedure under Sections 200 read with 202 Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner in the G.R. case has to be discontinued, and the Protest Petition shall be treated as a complaint. The registration thereof be accordingly effected, and the entire exercise undertaken in the G.R. case in taking cognizance of the offences be made over to the said complaint case.”
Succinctly put, the private opposite party lodged an FIR against the petitioners alleging certain irregularities in using the funds of the Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering and Technology (KIMET). After completion of investigation, the police found no evidence substantiating the allegations and therefore, a closure report was submitted before the JMFC, Chhendipada.
Pursuant to the acceptance of the closure report, the second opposite party submitted a protest petition before the Magistrate who, upon recording the initial statements of the complainant and of the witnesses under Section 202 of CrPC, found sufficient material for taking cognizance. However, she took cognizance against the petitioners in the GR case, which corresponds to the FIR in respect of which closure report was filed, instead of treating the protest petition as a 'complaint case' in order to take cognizance.
Being aggrieved by the cognizance order, the petitioners filed this application under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the same. The main contention on their behalf was that the cognizance could not have been taken in the GR case, which had come to an end by acceptance of the closure report by the Court. Therefore, even at all the Court was convinced to take cognizance, the same could have been taken by treating the protest petition as a complaint. Since there was a procedural irregularity, they prayed for quashing the cognizance order.
The Court acknowledged the legal position vis-à-vis a 'protest petition'. Though there is no express provision prescribing the filing of such petition, the Supreme Court has made it clear that whenever a fresh petition is filed to oppose acceptance of the closure report, the Magistrate shall consider such petition as a complaint and if prima facie case is made out, he shall be empowered to issue process in such complaint case.
Justice Dash relied upon the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State (2006) and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) to hold that if a protest petition satisfies the conditions of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the same as a complaint and proceed as per procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC.
Having regard for the aforesaid stance of law, the Court was of the view that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in the GR case while acting upon a protest petition. Though such act of the JMFC was a procedural irregularity, the Court emphasized that substantial justice cannot be allowed to be defeated for technical defects.
Resultantly, the Court directed for discontinuance of the cognizance taken in the GR case and for taking fresh cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint. Accordingly, the entire exercise undertaken by the JMFC upon taking cognizance was directed to be made over to the said complaint case.
Case Title: Sukanta Kumar Mohanty & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case No: CRLMC No. 4267 of 2023
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Ms. S. Mohanty, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate for the Private Opposite Party
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 141