A special CBI court has accepted the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case linked to the death of Gurugram-based property dealer Anil Kumar and dismissed the protest petition filed by his wife, Sonia, who had sought prosecution of several suspects for murder and abetment of suicide.Panchkula: Court accepts CBI closure report in 2023 Gurugram realtor death caseAnil Kumar was found dead with a gunshot wound inside his car near Pareena Society Apartments in Gurugram on January 6, 2023. An FIR under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (joint liability for crimes committed by multiple individuals) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered 22 days later. Alleging lapses in the police investigation, Sonia approached the Punjab and Haryana high court, which transferred the probe to the CBI. Pursuant to the court’s directions, the agency registered a regular case on March 27, 2024, and filed its closure report on October 8, 2025.The complainant alleged that Anil had been cheated of nearly ₹11 crore in a land deal and was either murdered or driven to suicide. She questioned the investigation, citing delayed FIR registration, failure to collect CCTV footage, conflicting forensic opinions and inadequate investigation of suspects linked to the land transactions.Her counsel argued that a ballistic report dated March 17, 2023, ruled out suicide as no gunshot residue was found on the deceased’s hands. It was also contended that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, and CFSL, Delhi, had given differing opinions regarding crime scene reconstruction. The complainant further questioned the delay in investigation, non-inclusion of the vehicle as case property for over 30 months and the alleged failure to identify two persons who had visited her house before Anil’s disappearance.The CBI, however, maintained that forensic, ballistic and crime scene reconstruction evidence pointed towards a self-inflicted gunshot injury. The agency stated that it took over the case nearly 14 months after the incident, and the local police could not collect CCTV footage. It added that all suspects were examined and no incriminating material linking them to the death surfaced during the probe.While noting serious lapses by the local police, including delayed FIR registration and non-collection of CCTV footage, the court held that the ballistic evidence indicating a possible self-inflicted gunshot injury, coupled with the complainant’s failure to name the suspects in the initial version and the absence of CCTV or other electronic evidence, rendered the allegations in the protest petition unsustainable.Observing that no incriminating material existed to justify taking cognisance of offences under Sections 302 or 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC against the suspects, the court dismissed the protest petition and accepted the CBI closure report.