Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vivek Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 July, 2026
SLP (Crl.) No.12827/2026
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).12827/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-05-2026
in SBCRMP No. 8757/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur]
VIVEK JOSHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 203042/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 24-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anand Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order of the
High Court which directed a chargesheet to be filed against the
absconding accused for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) before the jurisdictional Court which
was also directed to proceed under Section 299 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC). The petitioner’s contention is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
that though initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 406 and 420
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.07.27
16:14:17 IST
Reason:
IPC, he had omitted to include Section 66D of the Information and
Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) which is also attracted on the
SLP (Crl.) No.12827/2026
allegations levelled. By an application, the same was sought to be
included which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur
Metropolitan-II. The omission to mention Section 66D in the
impugned order prejudices the petitioner, is the contention.
2. On a reading of the order of the High Court, it is very
evident that the High Court interacted with the Investigating
Officer (I.O.) who was present in person. It is on the
Investigation Officer’s submissions that she has prima facie found
the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, that the
directions were issued.
3. In fact, ideally the High Court ought to have only directed
the investigation to be concluded and chargesheet to be filed.
Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra1, held that the formation of an
opinion, as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused
on trial, is exclusively that of the officer in-charge of the
investigation.
4. In any event, we see that the impugned order only directs the
chargesheet to be filed under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the
submissions made by the I.O. before Court that such offences have
been made out. However, the cited decision also held that when a
chargesheet is filed before the Magistrate, it is the judicial
discretion of the Magistrate to take cognizance. Ram Naresh Prasad
v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.2 held that even when a “Closure
Report”, finding no case made out is filed, the Court, though
cannot direct a chargesheet to be filed but could always take
1 1967 SCC OnLine SC 107
2 (2009) 11 SCC 299
SLP (Crl.) No.12827/2026
cognizance on the basis of the material in the report or direct
further investigation.
5. H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)3 and
Ramswarup Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh4, reiterated that when a
Closure Report is filed, finding no offence made out, the Court has
three options; (i) to accept the same and close the proceedings or
(ii) take cognizance of the matter on the materials in the report
or (iii) direct further investigation.
6. Hence, even if the chargesheet is filed only under Section 406
and 420 IPC, it would be open for the Magistrate to decide whether
Section 66D has to be included or not, at the time of taking
cognizance. The petitioner would be entitled to urge his
contentions at that point.
7. Insofar as the direction to file the chargesheet under Section
299; the provision speaks of recording of evidence in the absence
of accused. It is in the circumstances of the accused having
absconded that the High Court made mention of Section 299, only
reminding the Magistrate’s Court that when an accused is
absconding, if there is no chance of the accused being apprehended,
then the evidence should be recorded which would be used against
the accused on his apprehension later, if the witnesses are not
available or cannot be procured at that point of time.
8. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
High Court but only clarify that the Magistrate would have the
discretion to consider whether cognizance is to be taken under
3 (1980) 4 SCC 631
4 2019 SCC OnLine 1335
SLP (Crl.) No.12827/2026
Section 66D of the IT Act at the time the same is considered by the
Magistrate. So far as Section 299, it is the call of the Magistrate
to decide whether the facts of the case require the invocation of
Section 299 of Cr.PC.
9. With the above reservations, the Special Leave Petition is
disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HARPREET KAUR) (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
