The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a court considering a closure report cannot compel the investigating agency to form a particular opinion or file a chargesheet merely because the court disagrees with the agency’s assessment of the investigation.
A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi made the observation while allowing a criminal revision filed by M/s Geeta Infotech Sales and Service and others. The Court set aside the Special Judge’s order rejecting the closure report and directed that consequential proceedings arising solely from that order would also stand quashed.
Background
The matter arose from an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) into alleged irregularities in the purchase of equipment and other materials for Industrial Training Institutes in Ujjain.
The investigation concerned purchases worth approximately ₹96.23 lakh, which were allegedly made through limited tenders instead of the prescribed open tender process. The EOW also examined allegations concerning quotations obtained from firms connected with the same person.
A criminal case was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against several persons, including government officials and suppliers. Following investigation, the EOW submitted a closure report in respect of S.M. Kumbhare, citing lack of evidence of financial loss to the Government.
The Special Judge did not accept the closure report and directed further investigation. Closure reports were subsequently submitted again, but the Special Judge continued to reject them and directed further investigation on substantially similar issues.
The High Court noted that closure reports had been submitted on three occasions, but the Special Judge had repeatedly declined to accept them.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra, under which a Magistrate is not bound to accept the police’s final opinion and can disagree with it or order further investigation where the circumstances justify such a course.
However, the High Court clarified that this power does not permit the court to replace the investigating agency’s statutory assessment with its own conclusion regarding the result of the investigation.
"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 Bench observed.
The Bench also examined the allegations against the petitioners, who were contractors and suppliers.
The Court found that the allegations primarily arose from irregularities in the departmental procurement process. It emphasized that an administrative or departmental lapse, by itself, could not establish criminal liability against a private supplier.
"Criminal liability is personal and must be based upon specific material connecting the concerned person with the commission of the alleged offence," the Court stated.
With regard to cheating under Section 420 IPC, the Bench noted that the prosecution material would have to show fraudulent or dishonest intention from the beginning of the transaction. Similarly, an allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC could not be sustained merely because a person was connected with a particular transaction.
The High Court found that the impugned order did not identify any specific act or omission by the petitioners establishing fraudulent intention, deception, conspiracy, or conscious participation in the alleged offences.
The Bench further noted that there was no fresh material demonstrating active participation by the petitioners. It held that their continued involvement in the criminal proceedings could not be justified solely on the basis of departmental irregularities.
Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the Special Judge’s order dated February 12, 2026, quashed consequential proceedings arising solely from that order, and allowed Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Geeta Infotech Sales and Service Bhopal Proprietor Pankaj Soni and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Economic Offence Wing and Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2026
Judge: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi
Decision Date: September 21, 2026
