1 (Cri WP 2802 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2009 The National Small Industries Corporation ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents ****** Ms. Usha R. Tiwari for Petitioner Mr.S.K.Shinde for CBI for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.D.R. More -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. 2. The Petitioner is the original complainant, who had filed the complaint dated 22.8.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI and on the basis of the said complaint, the FIR was registered on 23.2.2005. Subsequently, the Learned Sessions Judge was pleased to pass an order on the closure report filed by the CBI under section 169 r/w. Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and 2 (Cri WP 2802 of 2009) the accused were discharged. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Learned Sessions Judge ought to have given notice to the Petitioner before passing an order on the closure report. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. [AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1285]. 4. On the other hand, Shri Shinde appearing on behalf of the CBI has invited my attention to the FIR and submitted that the FIR does not disclose the name of the Petitioner as the Complainant and it is mentioned in column 1 that the Complainant is source of information. It is, therefore, submitted that it was not necessary to inform the Complainant. 5. The said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the CBI cannot be accepted in view of the letter which is at Exhibit 'A', which admittedly received by the CBI and on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra), has clearly observed that before 3 (Cri WP 2802 of 2009) passing an order on the closure report, the Learned Sessions Judge has to give notice to the Complainant. Admittedly, no such notice was given by the learned Sessions Judge. The impugned order, therefore, will have to be quashed and set aside. 6. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Petitioner is permitted to file a protest petition and, thereafter, the Learned Sessions Judge may pass an order in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)