ORDER
Since both the writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sagar in MJC
(R) No.93/2026 and involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
1
2. WP No.8978/2026 has been filed by the petitioner Govind Singh Rajput challenging the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sagar in MJC (R) No.93/2026, whereby the Court declined to accept the closure/final report submitted by the SIT in Crime/FIR No.249/2025 and directed further investigation, including re-recording of statements of witnesses already examined and examination of additional persons described as farmers residing near the place of occurrence. The petitioner seeks quashment of the said order and a direction that the closure report submitted pursuant to the investigation conducted under the framework and supervision contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court be considered strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the existing investigative material, without reopening witness statements through repeated investigative cycles or indefinite expansion of witnesses.
3. WP No.9143/2026 has been filed by Smt. Reva Adivasi, widow of deceased Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi, who has also assailed the same order on the ground that despite the SIT having considered the entire material including the affidavit of the deceased, his statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, and the statements of all relevant witnesses, the learned Special Judge mechanically directed reopening of investigation without assigning legally sustainable reasons.
4. Heard on I.A. No. 5184/2026 filed in W.P. No. 8978/2026, an application preferred by the Intervenor Neeraj Adivasi seeking permission to intervene in the present proceedings.
2
5. It is submitted that the applicant is the real brother of the deceased/complainant Nilesh Adivasi and was present at the place of occurrence on 01.07.2025, which led to registration of FIR No. 249/2025 at Police Station Malthone, District Sagar. It is further submitted that the present petitioner - Govind Singh Rajput has been named as the principal accused in the said crime and that the applicant, being closely related to the deceased and having direct knowledge of the incident, has a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the present proceedings.
6. Considering the averments made in the application and having regard to the fact that the applicant is the real brother of the deceased/complainant and claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence forming the subject matter of the present proceedings, this Court is of the view that the applicant cannot be treated as a stranger to the litigation. The applicant appears to have a direct and substantial interest in the matter and his participation would assist the Court in effectively adjudicating the issues involved.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5184/2026 is allowed. The applicant Neeraj Adivasi is permitted to intervene in the present proceedings.
8. The application (I.A. No. 5184/2026) stands disposed of.
9. The controversy originates from registration of Crime No.249/2025 dated 01.07.2025 at Police Station Malthone, District Sagar on the complaint of Late Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi against petitioner Govind Singh Rajput and
3
another. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, Govind Singh Rajput (Malthone), claims to be a local political worker, former Janpad President, and resident of Malthone, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner - Govind Singh Rajput has been arrayed as an accused in Crime/FIR No. 249/2025, Crime/FIR No. 329/2025, and Crime/FIR No. 390/2025 registered at Police Station Malthone, District Sagar. The controversy commenced with registration of Crime/FIR No. 249/2025 dated 01.07.2025 at Police Station Malthone against the petitioner and one Bharat @ Gultai Adivasi on the complaint of Late Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi. In the said FIR, allegations were levelled that the petitioner - Govind Singh Rajput and co-accused had threatened the complainant with dire consequences, including threats to kill him, and had also abused him by taking his caste name, thereby attracting offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
10. According to the petitioners, subsequent developments materially altered the factual substratum of the allegations made in the said FIR. It is contended that thereafter Late Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi retracted the allegations levelled against the petitioner - Govind Singh Rajput by submitting an affidavit/complaint dated 14.07.2025. It is further stated that written representations removing or modifying the allegations were submitted before the authorities. During investigation, statements of the deceased were recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 161 CrPC, and a video statement of the deceased also surfaced in circulation. Thereafter, the judicial
4
statement of the deceased was recorded under Section 183 BNSS corresponding to Section 164 CrPC before the competent Magistrate, wherein the deceased allegedly reiterated his retraction and stated that he had no grievance against the present petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput.
11. The record further reflects that subsequently the deceased, Late Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi, died by suicide. Following the death of the deceased, respondent Smt. Reva Adivasi, wife of the deceased, submitted written complaints before the authorities. Statements of Reva Adivasi and her son were also recorded during merg/inquest proceedings. In the said statements, allegations were made that the petitioner's - Govind Singh Rajput name had allegedly been inserted or substituted in place of one Dr. Manoj Jain after the deceased had been made to consume alcohol, and that the deceased had been subjected to pressure and coercion. Reva Adivasi is stated to have pursued several representations before senior police authorities seeking action in the matter.
12. It is further borne out from the record that Reva Adivasi instituted Writ Petition No. 31491/2025 before this Court, wherein by order dated 08.08.2025 this Court called for instructions from the authorities regarding action taken on the complaints submitted by her. Thereafter, Crime/FIR No. 329/2025 dated 04.09.2025 came to be registered in relation to the death by suicide of Late Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi. According to the petitioners, the said FIR contains two parallel versions on record, namely, one based on the version of the widow of the deceased and another allegedly based upon a
5
statement attributed to Neeraj Adivasi, brother of the deceased. In the said FIR, allegations were levelled against the petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput and others in relation to abetment of suicide and connected offences. The petitioners contends that while registering and investigating the said FIR, the investigating agency failed to meaningfully consider or account for the prior affidavit, representations, and judicial statement of the deceased recorded under Section 164 CrPC/Section 183 BNSS, which according to the petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput exonerated him from the allegations.
13. The petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput thereafter approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36377/2025 seeking quashment of both FIR No. 249/2025 and FIR No. 329/2025, along with other consequential reliefs. Meanwhile, the petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Trial Court/Special Court in connection with the aforesaid crimes, which came to be rejected by order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 1338/2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput preferred Criminal Appeal No. 10005/2025 before this Court. During pendency of the proceedings, another FIR bearing Crime No. 390/2025 also came to be registered against the petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput for the offence punishable under Section 296(b), 329(3) and 351(3) of BNS as well as 3(1)(f), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act by one Yogendra Kushwah, Revenue Officer for encroaching upon the land of one Malti Adivasi and threatening and abusing her. Thereafter, this Court dismissed the petitioner's - Govind Singh Rajput plea for anticipatory bail by order dated 30.10.2025.
6
14. The petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput subsequently approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 19960/2025. Reva Adivasi also preferred SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 64256/2025, in which the petitioner- Govind Singh Rajput appeared as an intervenor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the rival submissions and the nature of controversy involved, passed orders dated 01.12.2025 and thereafter 11.12.2025 directing constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three IPS officers for conducting investigation in the matter and also passed certain protective directions. Thereafter, an application dated 17.01.2026 was moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking extension of time for completion of investigation by the SIT. By order dated 10.02.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the time for completion of investigation up to 15.03.2026.
15. Pursuant to the investigation conducted by the SIT, a closure/final report came to be submitted in Crime No. 249/2025 before the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sagar. However, by the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed in MJC (R) No. 93/2026, the learned Special Judge declined to accept the closure report and directed further investigation. While passing the said order, the learned Court directed re-recording of statements of certain named witnesses and also directed recording of statements of farmers residing near the place of occurrence/field. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2026, the SIT issued notices/summons on 07.03.2026 to several witnesses, including additional persons not previously examined, and proceeded to re-record statements which had already been recorded earlier before the competent Magistrate and
7
police authorities. The petitioners contend that such repeated reopening of statements and expansion of the witness list travels beyond the framework contemplated by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and amounts to an impermissible roving and fishing inquiry. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2026 directing further investigation and reopening of witness examination, the petitioners filed this present petitions. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the present petitions have been placed before this Court for adjudication.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Govind Singh Rajput argued that the present petition assails the legality, propriety and jurisdictional sustainability of the impugned order whereby the learned Court below, under the guise of directing "further investigation", has in substance ordered a de novo/fresh investigation, thereby reopening the entire prosecution framework without any legally sustainable foundation. The impugned order is ex facie arbitrary, non-speaking, contrary to settled principles governing criminal investigation, and liable to be set aside. Is is submitted that the criminal jurisprudence recognizes a clear and well-settled distinction between further investigation, which is supplementary and limited in nature, intended only to collect additional material relating to a specific identified omission; and fresh/re-investigation/De novo investigation, which effectively wipes out or reconstructs the earlier investigation. According to petitioner, the impugned order, though formally styled as a direction for "further investigation", in substance authorizes a wholesale reopening of the investigative exercise by directing re-recording of statements of witnesses already examined;
8
permitting expansion of the witness pool through the vague expression
"farmers residing near the place of occurrence"; reopening factual narratives already crystallized in the investigation; and enabling reconstruction of the prosecution story. Such directions exceed the permissible limits of supplementary investigation and amount to a fresh investigative cycle, which the learned Court below had no jurisdiction to casually authorize in the absence of extraordinary circumstances and specific judicial findings.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is settled law that further investigation cannot be converted into a mechanism for improving a weak prosecution case, filling omissions, repairing evidentiary defects, searching for better witnesses, or securing a different investigative outcome. He submitted that the criminal process does not permit an open- ended "witness harvesting" exercise merely because one side seeks a more favourable narrative. It is further submitted that the impugned directions suffer from a fundamental legal infirmity inasmuch as they enable the investigating agency to revisit and reshape previously recorded evidence. The direction to re-record statements of already examined witnesses is particularly impermissible because it exposes witnesses to repeated police interaction, creates a substantial risk of tutoring, coercion and manipulation, enables alteration and improvement of prior versions, and undermines the integrity and certainty of the investigative process. Criminal investigation cannot become an iterative exercise where statements are repeatedly recorded until a desired version emerges. It is further argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the independent ground that it is
9
entirely non-speaking and devoid of judicial reasoning. The learned Court below has failed to identify any specific material fact left uninvestigated and any identified witness whose non-examination created a demonstrable investigative defect. In the absence of a defined omission or legally identifiable gap, the direction for reopening the investigation becomes wholly arbitrary. It is further submitted that the investigation in the connected matrix had already been entrusted to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court owing to the sensitivity of the matter. The entire rationale behind entrusting investigation to an SIT was to insulate the process from local pressures and ensure evidentiary integrity. The order therefore directly frustrates the object underlying the Supreme Court-monitored investigative framework. The impugned order further ignores a crucial legal principle governing evidentiary sanctity where witnesses have already given judicial statements under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS). Such statements possess enhanced evidentiary assurance because they are recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under statutory safeguards. The direction to examine "farmers residing near the place of occurrence" is facially vague and suffers from complete absence of particulars. The order identifies no names, specifies no radius or locality, records no basis for believing such persons witnessed the occurrence, and lays down no limiting criteria. The result is an unrestricted and potentially limitless exercise enabling introduction of subsequently manufactured "independent witnesses". The impugned order effectively sanctions a roving and fishing investigation, which is impermissible in law.
10
1. Sonu and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. [(2026) SCC OnLine
ALL 318],
2. T.T. Antony vs. STate of Kerala and Ors. [(2001) 6 SCC 181],
3. Abhinandan Jha and Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC
117]
17. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the present matter does not exist in isolation. The reopening directed in FIR No. 249/2025 is capable of materially impacting and contaminating FIR No. 329/2025, and allied proceedings. Repeated statement-recording and introduction of new oral narratives in one proceeding inevitably affects evidentiary consistency across the connected matrix. The prejudice caused to the Petitioner is therefore not confined to one FIR but extends systemically across interconnected proceedings. Such cascading prejudice required heightened judicial caution, which is entirely absent from the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has further failed to consider highly material evidence already available on record, viz. written applications/representations submitted by deceased Late Nilesh @ Natthu Adivasi; statements recorded by the police during investigation; and his judicial statement recorded before the competent Magistrate. These materials possess substantial evidentiary significance and clearly indicate that FIR No. 249/2025 was false, fabricated and frivolous. The said statements, particularly the judicial statement recorded before the Magistrate, carry evidentiary value analogous to a dying declaration insofar as they relate to
11
the circumstances and falsity surrounding the prosecution narrative. Instead of evaluating these crucial materials, the learned Court below mechanically directed reopening of investigation, thereby ignoring exculpatory evidence already available on record. This omission goes to the root of the impugned order and renders it unsustainable. He submitted that a criminal investigation cannot be permitted to become a continuously expandable process vulnerable to external influence and narrative reconstruction. With the aforesaid he prays to allow the petition. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following pronouncements :
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 - Reva Adivasi (petitioner in W.P. No.9143/2026) supported the closure report and contended that the learned Special Judge completely ignored the most material pieces of evidence including the affidavit of the deceased dated 14.07.2025, his statement under Section 180 BNSS and his judicial statement under Section 183 BNSS. It is submitted that the witnesses whose statements were directed to be re-recorded had already been examined by the SIT and consciously considered while submitting the closure report. The learned Court below neither sought clarification from the SIT nor assigned reasons as to why the conclusions reached by the SIT were unacceptable. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned order undermines the very object behind constitution of the SIT by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and exposes witnesses to repeated interactions and possible influence despite the concerns specifically noticed by the Supreme Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following pronouncements :
12
1. Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. [(2013) 5 SCC 762].
2. Hemant Dhasmana vs. CBI and Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 536].
3. Union of India & Anr vs. W.N. Chadha [1993 Supp (4) SCC 260
19. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the investigation in the present matter was conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and after recording statements of all relevant witnesses and considering the material collected during investigation, the SIT formed an independent opinion and submitted the closure/final report before the competent Court. It is submitted that the impugned order directing further investigation appears to have proceeded on the assumption that statements of certain witnesses namely Mohan Adivasi, Ajeet Rai and Pramod Adivasi had not been properly investigated during investigation. However, as reflected from the case diary and investigation papers, statements of the aforesaid witnesses, along with Reva Adivasi and other relevant persons, had already been recorded and considered by the SIT prior to submission of the closure report.
20. Learned State counsel submitted that in view of the material already collected during investigation, the learned Special Judge ought to have considered the closure report in accordance with law. It is further submitted that though the State has reservations regarding the correctness of the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, particularly in view of the fact that the witnesses referred to therein had already been examined during investigation, the investigating agency nevertheless remains bound to
13
comply with any lawful direction issued by the competent Court unless the same is modified or set aside by a superior Court.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor-Neeraj Adivasi submits that the present petition, as framed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable in law. It is contended that the order impugned herein has been passed by the learned Special Judge in exercise of judicial and adjudicatory powers vested in the Court and, therefore, such an order cannot ordinarily be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is not intended to sit in appeal over judicial orders passed by subordinate Courts and that interference, if any, against such orders can only be sought by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or by availing such statutory remedy as may be available under law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has deliberately invoked Article 226 despite the settled legal position that judicial orders of competent Courts are not amenable to challenge under the said provision. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor discloses any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
14
23. Before entering into merits of the matter, this Court has given anxious consideration to the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the intervenor regarding the maintainability of the present petition. It is well settled that a judicial order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in exercise of its adjudicatory functions is ordinarily not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is primarily directed against administrative, quasi-judicial or executive actions and cannot ordinarily be invoked to assail a judicial order rendered by a subordinate Court. Such orders are liable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or by availing such statutory remedies as may be available under law.
24. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the learned Special Judge while exercising judicial powers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam & Another v. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, authoritatively held that "judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution" and that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, strictly speaking, the petition as framed under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
25. However, it is equally well settled that mere misdescription or incorrect nomenclature of a petition is not decisive of the jurisdiction of the Court. The substance of the relief sought and the nature of the challenge are
15
the determining factors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that where the pleadings disclose a case for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court is not precluded from treating a petition styled under Article 226 as one under Article 227 and deciding the same on merits. Since the present challenge is directed against a judicial order passed by a subordinate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the matter in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the objection regarding maintainability is overruled to the extent that, though the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable in its present form, the same can be considered and adjudicated under Article 227 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the case. No formal amendment of the cause title is necessary for this purpose, as substance prevails over form.
26. The principal question requiring consideration is whether the learned Special Judge committed any jurisdictional error in directing further investigation while declining to accept the closure/final report submitted by the SIT. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the power of the Magistrate/Special Court to direct further investigation after submission of a police report is no longer res integra. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra , reported in AIR 1968 SC 117 authoritatively held that though a Magistrate cannot compel the police to submit a charge-sheet, the Magistrate is fully empowered to direct further investigation if the material collected during investigation appears incomplete or unsatisfactory. The relevant portion is quoted hereinunder :
16
15. Then the question is, what is the position, when the Magistrate is dealing with a report submitted by the police, under Section 173, that no case is made out for sending up an accused for trial, which report, as we have already indicated, is called, in the area in question, as a 'final report'? Even in those cases, if the Magistrate agrees with the said report, he may accept the final report and close the proceedings. But there may be instances when the Magistrate may take the view, on a consideration of the final report, that the opinion formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investigation, in which case, in our opinion, the Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police, under Section 156(3), to make a further investigation. That is, if the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation, under Section 156(3). The police, after such further investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If, ultimately, the
17
Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report.
27. The distinction between "further investigation" and "fresh/de novo investigation" is undoubtedly well recognized in criminal jurisprudence. Further investigation is supplementary in nature and intended to collect additional material relating to aspects left unexplored, whereas fresh or de novo investigation ordinarily supplants the earlier investigation and is directed only in exceptional circumstances by superior constitutional courts. However, merely because certain witnesses are directed to be examined or re-examined, it does not automatically convert supplementary investigation into a fresh investigation. The true test is whether the earlier investigation has been obliterated or whether the investigating agency has merely been directed to fill identifiable gaps left in the investigative process.
28. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 and the material available on record, this Court finds that the principal basis assigned by the learned Special Judge for directing further investigation was the alleged non-consideration of the statements of certain material witnesses, namely Mohan Adivasi, Ajeet Rai, and Pramod Adivasi, prior to submission of the closure report. The learned Special Judge observed that the said witnesses supported the occurrence of the incident and, on that premise,
18
directed their re-examination along with other adjoining farmers. However, a careful examination of the case diary and the material placed before this Court clearly reveals that the SIT had, during the course of investigation itself, recorded the statements of Mohan Adivasi, Ajeet Rai, Pramod Adivasi, as well as Reva Adivasi and other relevant witnesses, and only thereafter formed its investigative opinion leading to submission of the closure/final report. Thus, the very foundation on which the learned Special Judge proceeded to direct further investigation is factually erroneous and contrary to the record. The impugned direction, having been founded upon an incorrect factual premise, cannot be sustained in law.
28. The impugned order further reveals that the learned Court below did not undertake the exercise required in law while considering a closure/final report submitted under the provisions of BNSS corresponding to Section 173 CrPC/193 of BNSS. The legal position in this regard stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha (supra), wherein it has been held that upon submission of a police report, the Magistrate has broadly three courses open:
(i) to accept the report and close the proceedings if satisfied with the investigation;
(ii) to disagree with the report and take cognizance if sufficient material exists for proceeding in accordance with law; or
(iii) in appropriate cases, direct further investigation where the investigation appears incomplete owing to identifiable omissions.
19
29. In the present case, once the SIT had already examined Mohan Adivasi, Ajeet Rai, Pramod Adivasi, Reva Adivasi and other relevant witnesses and thereafter formed its investigative conclusion, the learned Special Judge was required to independently assess the material collected during investigation and thereafter either:
(a) accept the closure report if satisfied with the conclusions of the SIT; or
(b) disagree with the report and proceed in accordance with law by taking cognizance if sufficient grounds existed.
30. Instead of undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the learned Court below proceeded on an incorrect factual premise and directed reopening of investigation despite the relevant witnesses already having been examined. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material available on record and consequently cannot be sustained in its present form. This Court is also unable to overlook the fact that the investigation in the present matter was not conducted by an ordinary investigating officer but by a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers constituted pursuant to orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the closure report submitted by the SIT is not binding upon the Court and can certainly be disagreed with, any decision to reject such report must be based upon a proper consideration of the entire material and not on a factual misconception regarding the
20
investigation already undertaken. It is equally important to note that this Court is not expressing any opinion upon the correctness of the conclusions reached by the SIT, the evidentiary value of the affidavit of the deceased, the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, or the ultimate merits of the allegations made in Crime No.249/2025. All such questions remain open for consideration by the competent Court. The only issue before this Court concerns the legality of the order dated 26.02.2026. Since the impugned order proceeds upon an incorrect factual foundation and fails to undertake the exercise contemplated in law while dealing with a closure report, the same cannot be sustained.
31. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sagar in MJC (R) No. 93/2026 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sagar for fresh consideration of the closure/final report submitted by the SIT strictly in accordance with law. The learned Special Judge shall reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the entire material already collected during investigation, more particularly, the statement of Nilesh Adivasi (deceased) given before the Investigating Authority and before the Judicial Magistrate, however, the Court may also take into account the statements of other witnesses and other relevant evidence on record. It shall be open to the learned Special Judge either to accept the closure report, if satisfied with the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency, or to disagree with the same and proceed in accordance with law, including taking cognizance if grounds so exist. The learned Special Judge shall pass a fresh
21
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
reasoned order independently and uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier impugned order.
32. Accordingly, both the Writ Petition No. 8978/2026 and Writ Petition No. 9143/2026 are accordingly allowed and disposed off to the extent indicated hereinabove.
mn
22