The High Court quashed an order refusing to accept a police cancellation report that had already been accepted in 2001. The court held that the Magistrate could not legitimately reject the same report or initiate trial proceedings again.
Impugned order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21963 of 2012 (O&M)
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21963 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.11. 2012
Raj Kumar and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab.
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the present case, FIR No.93 dated 10.4.1999 under Section 382, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka District Fazilka was duly inquired by the investigating agency. Thereafter, cancellation report
2
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21963 of 2012 (O&M)
was submitted by the police on 23.11.2001 before the Magistrate. On the said date, following order (Annexure P-2) was passed on the said report:-
“Cancellation report presented today. It be registered. Complainant Darshan Singh son of Kehar Singh son of Kundan Singh r/o Badha P.S. Saddar, Fazilka has also come present. His statement recorded separately, where he stated that he does agree with the cancellation report submitted by the police and he does not want to proceed with the present case. He placed on record photostat copy of his passport as Ex.P1, with regard to his identity.
In view of the above statement of the complainant, recorded separately, I am satisfied that there is no necessity to proceed with the present FIR. As such, the cancellation report submitted by the prosecution stands accepted. Necessary intimation be sent to SSP, Ferozepur. The police file along with a copy of this order, duly attested under the signatures of Reader of this court, be sent to the police station concerned. Judicial papers be consigned to the Record Room, Ferozepur.”
Thus, the cancellation report was duly accepted by the Magistrate. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the investigating agency to present another cancellation report in the same FIR as the same had already been accepted by the Magistrate vide order dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure P-2). Vide the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-5), the Magistrate in the second
3
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21963 of 2012 (O&M)
cancellation report has held as under:-
“Accordingly, the cancellation report presented by the police is hereby rejected and on the basis of material available on the police file particularly the aspect of recovery of snatched scooter having been effected from the accused. I rather find sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons. The case is, thus, ordered to be registered as a challan case. Learned APP is directed to furnish list of witnesses and the accused are ordered to be summoned for 13.4.2011 to face the trial under Sections 392/ 506/ 34 IPC.”
The said finding of the Magistrate on the second cancellation report is liable to be set aside as the cancellation report submitted by the police with regard to the FIR in question had already been accepted by the Magistrate vide order dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure P-2).
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) is set aside.
(SABINA) JUDGE
November 20, 2012
anita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate was competent to reject a previously accepted cancellation report and require a second FIR challan.
Whether the impugned order authorizing trial based on a rejection of a twice-accepted compromise needs quashing.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Kumar and others
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
