Review

The article dedicated the exploring the actual for modern law-enforcement practice of the questions, which connected with the closing of the criminal case, when there are not many attests to proof the guilt of a person; the sufferer refused from the prosecution and exposition of the interpretation of the criminal and judicial legislation, which connected with the dispensation of investigator and procurator in closing of the criminal case. The author makes the inference about juridical imperfection of the criminal and judicial legislation in the part of the normative regulation of the required grounds for closing of the criminal investigation and suggests the doctrinal interpretation of the problems in the law-enforcement practice.

It is noted that the legal meaning of Article 4. 284 CPС, in our view, be interpreted systematically and consistently. In particular, the first paragraph provides: “On the closure of criminal proceedings investigator, prosecutor adopt a resolution, which may be appealed in the manner prescribed by this Code”. In other words, the legislator establishes the general rule that the investigator and the prosecutor may close the criminal proceedings in cases where the reason for this is formalizing its decision in the form of resolution. However, the responsibility of investigating it considers only the closure of the grounds provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 9 p. 1 art. 284 CCP provided that any person in the present proceedings was not notified of the suspicion. If a person informed of the suspicion that a criminal prosecutor closes the proceedings.

Keywords: pre-trial investigation completion; closing of the criminal procedure; the competence of investigator, procurator; sufferer's refuse from the prosecution; cases of private prosecution.