Mumbai court rejects closure report in rape case against T-Series MD Bhushan Kumar despite complainant's no objection

A magistrate court in Mumbai recently rejected the closure report filed by the police in a rape case against T-Series' chairperson and managing director, Bhushan Kumar despite the complainant woman stating that she had no objection to closing the case. .Metropolitan Magistrate RR Khan said that what was noteworthy about the investigation was that after the offence was registered, neither did the investigating officers seek to arrest the accused, nor did the accused approach any court for anticipatory bail. "The minute perusal of the report furnishes an assurance that various legal aspects have been compromised during an unprecedented investigation. It appears that the investigating officers have attempted quashing of the crime before this forum through this B-Summary report...Unfortunately there is a consistent recurrence of the heinous crime of rape and number of times the nation has been rocked by such offences but the investigating officers and victim have dealt altogether differently in this matter of high stake," the Court said.The case had been registered based on the complaint of a 30-year-old woman last July.When the police defines the case as willfully false or when there is no evidence or a prima facie case against the accused after investigation, a closure report also known as "B summary" report is filed..After receipt of the notice was issued to the survivor, she filed an affidavit stating that the allegations were made by her as a result of a circumstantial misunderstanding. She, therefore, wished to withdraw her allegations and had no objection for approval of the B-Summary report.On the other hand, the approval of the report was protested by a third person, one Mallikarjun Pujari, through a protest petition. He annexed various documents including the FIRs lodged by the survivor as well as a letter written by her to him to support his case.Mallikarjun's petition was strongly opposed by Bhushan Kumar who also filed an intervener application and requested for the approval of the B-Summary report..Assistant Public Prosecutor Gopichand Khade opposed Bhushan's application. According to him, each stakeholder had taken their own recourse to satisfy their own cause via procedures not recognised by law. He then added that the complainant misused the State machinery for her own benefits and strict action should be taken against her..Keeping in mind the conclusion drawn from the judicial ratios relied upon by the parties, Khan clarified that neither Pujari nor Kumar had any locus to appear and intervene in the matter and opined that they had fully crossed their limits."Their conduct is imperative of the fact that they have vested interests are at stake with this report," he commented.These initiatives, according to the magistrate, demonstrated Bhushan Kumar's desire to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.The Court relied upon various precedents to hold that the magistrate can ignore the closure report and take appropriate action after independently applying his mind. "The sum and substance of all ratios may be summarized as that after receipt of any final report by the police, the magistrate may ignore the conclusion and may take appropriate action as per law after independently applying his mind. The ratios clarify that except informant/victim no other stranger is entitled to protest or appear against the report," the Court explained.Thereafter, noting that the law was set in motion by the informant for her personal gain, the Court chose to sideline the same as the material on record indicated commission of the offence that could be established through proper investigation.The Court, therefore, ordered the police to conduct an investigation into the situation in accordance with the law. It also told the Zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to keep an eye on the inquiry.The Court also ordered the additional public prosecutor (APP) to pursue legal action against the complainant for violating the law. It further ordered the APP to report the investigators' actions to the Mumbai commissioner of police and the state Director General of Police.