CRM-M-29116- 158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vijay Sharma State of Punjab and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Siddharth Sihag, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 registered under Sections 306 Morinda, District Rupnagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judi whereby the cancellation report submitted by the police was not accepted and cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was taken against the petitioner and other accused persons. The petitioner has f challenged the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions -2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Decided on : VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Mr. Siddharth Sihag, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 registered under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Morinda, District Rupnagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judi whereby the cancellation report submitted by the police was not accepted and cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was taken against the petitioner and other accused persons. The petitioner has f challenged the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29116-2022 (O&M) Decided on :-16.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Morinda, District Rupnagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar whereby the cancellation report submitted by the police was not accepted and cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was taken against the petitioner and other accused persons. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Morinda, District Rupnagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated cial Magistrate, Rupnagar whereby the cancellation report submitted by the police was not accepted and cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was urther challenged the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29116- Judge, Rupnagar whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are registered under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Morinda in relation to the suicide committed by Varun Sharma. During the course of investigation, the police conducted inquiry into the allegat presented a cancellation report before the Court. Notice of the cancellation report was issued to the complainant Arun Sharma, brother of the deceased. On 07.10.2017 the complainant appeared before the Court and made a statement that he did not agree with the cancellation report and intended to file a protest petition. Thereafter, on 29.01.2018 the complainant filed a protest petition which was treated by the learned Court as a private complaint and the matter was fixed for recording of preliminary evidence. The complainant led his preliminary evidence in support of the protest petition. However, on 16.09.2021 the complainant suffered a statement before the Court withdrawing the protest petition and stated that he had no objection if the accepted. The matter was then adjourned for consideration of the cancellation report. 3. Subsequently, on 04.10.2021 one Anil Joshi, who was stated to be a witness in the case and claimed to be acquainted wi appeared before the Court and made a statement stating that he did not agree with the cancellation report and that there was sufficient material on record for taking cognizance. Thereafter the learned Additional Chief Judicial the entire material placed on record including the police report, the statements recorded during investigation and the documents collected during the course of -2022 (O&M) Judge, Rupnagar whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 was registered under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Morinda in relation to the suicide committed by Varun Sharma. During the course of investigation, the police conducted inquiry into the allegat presented a cancellation report before the Court. Notice of the cancellation report was issued to the complainant Arun Sharma, brother of the deceased. On 07.10.2017 the complainant appeared before the Court and made a statement that did not agree with the cancellation report and intended to file a protest petition. Thereafter, on 29.01.2018 the complainant filed a protest petition which was treated by the learned Court as a private complaint and the matter was fixed for preliminary evidence. The complainant led his preliminary evidence in support of the protest petition. However, on 16.09.2021 the complainant suffered a statement before the Court withdrawing the protest petition and stated that he had no objection if the cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted. The matter was then adjourned for consideration of the cancellation Subsequently, on 04.10.2021 one Anil Joshi, who was stated to be a witness in the case and claimed to be acquainted wi appeared before the Court and made a statement stating that he did not agree with the cancellation report and that there was sufficient material on record for taking cognizance. Thereafter the learned Additional Chief Judicial the entire material placed on record including the police report, the statements recorded during investigation and the documents collected during the course of -2- Judge, Rupnagar whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate was dismissed. that FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 was registered under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Morinda in relation to the suicide committed by Varun Sharma. During the course of investigation, the police conducted inquiry into the allegations and ultimately presented a cancellation report before the Court. Notice of the cancellation report was issued to the complainant Arun Sharma, brother of the deceased. On 07.10.2017 the complainant appeared before the Court and made a statement that did not agree with the cancellation report and intended to file a protest petition. Thereafter, on 29.01.2018 the complainant filed a protest petition which was treated by the learned Court as a private complaint and the matter was fixed for preliminary evidence. The complainant led his preliminary evidence in support of the protest petition. However, on 16.09.2021 the complainant suffered a statement before the Court withdrawing the protest petition and stated cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted. The matter was then adjourned for consideration of the cancellation Subsequently, on 04.10.2021 one Anil Joshi, who was stated to be a witness in the case and claimed to be acquainted with the facts of the incident, appeared before the Court and made a statement stating that he did not agree with the cancellation report and that there was sufficient material on record for taking cognizance. Thereafter the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the entire material placed on record including the police report, the statements recorded during investigation and the documents collected during the course of Judge, Rupnagar whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the that FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2015 was registered under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Morinda in relation to the suicide committed by Varun Sharma. During the course ions and ultimately presented a cancellation report before the Court. Notice of the cancellation report was issued to the complainant Arun Sharma, brother of the deceased. On 07.10.2017 the complainant appeared before the Court and made a statement that did not agree with the cancellation report and intended to file a protest petition. Thereafter, on 29.01.2018 the complainant filed a protest petition which was treated by the learned Court as a private complaint and the matter was fixed for preliminary evidence. The complainant led his preliminary evidence in support of the protest petition. However, on 16.09.2021 the complainant suffered a statement before the Court withdrawing the protest petition and stated cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted. The matter was then adjourned for consideration of the cancellation Subsequently, on 04.10.2021 one Anil Joshi, who was stated to be a th the facts of the incident, appeared before the Court and made a statement stating that he did not agree with the cancellation report and that there was sufficient material on record for taking Magistrate considered the entire material placed on record including the police report, the statements recorded during investigation and the documents collected during the course of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29116- inquiry. Upon such consideration, the learned Magistrate found that there sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused persons and consequently rejected the cancellation report and took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and ordered summoning of the accused persons including the present petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2021. 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, which too was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.20 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that once the cancellation report was filed by the police and the same was treated as a protest petition at the instance of the complainant and thereafter the complainant himself withdrew the protest petition stating that he had no objection if the cancellation report was accepted, the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. It is argued that once the protest p occasion for the Magistrate to proceed further in the matter. 6. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that upon submission of a final report or cancellation 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police and has independent power to apply his mind to the material collected during investigation. The Magistrate is competent to accept the cancellation report, to direct investigation or to disagree with the police report and take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. if the material on record discloses commission of an offence. The exercise of such power by the Magistrate is not dependent upon the wishes of the complainant or the informant. Even if the protest petition filed by -2022 (O&M) inquiry. Upon such consideration, the learned Magistrate found that there sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused persons and consequently rejected the cancellation report and took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and ordered summoning of the sons including the present petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2021. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, which too was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that once the cancellation report was filed by the police and the same was treated as a protest petition at the instance of the complainant and thereafter the complainant himself he protest petition stating that he had no objection if the cancellation report was accepted, the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. It is argued that once the protest petition was withdrawn by the complainant, there remained no occasion for the Magistrate to proceed further in the matter. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that upon submission of a final report or cancellation 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police and has independent power to apply his mind to the material collected during investigation. The Magistrate is competent to accept the cancellation report, to direct investigation or to disagree with the police report and take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. if the material on record discloses commission of an offence. The exercise of such power by the Magistrate is not dependent upon ishes of the complainant or the informant. Even if the protest petition filed by -3- inquiry. Upon such consideration, the learned Magistrate found that there was sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused persons and consequently rejected the cancellation report and took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and ordered summoning of the sons including the present petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2021. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, which too was Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that once the cancellation report was filed by the police and the same was treated as a protest petition at the instance of the complainant and thereafter the complainant himself he protest petition stating that he had no objection if the cancellation report was accepted, the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. It is argued etition was withdrawn by the complainant, there remained no occasion for the Magistrate to proceed further in the matter. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that upon submission of a final report or cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police and has independent power to apply his mind to the material collected during investigation. The Magistrate is competent to accept the cancellation report, to direct further investigation or to disagree with the police report and take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. if the material on record discloses commission of an offence. The exercise of such power by the Magistrate is not dependent upon ishes of the complainant or the informant. Even if the protest petition filed by was sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused persons and consequently rejected the cancellation report and took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and ordered summoning of the Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, which too was Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that once the cancellation report was filed by the police and the same was treated as a protest petition at the instance of the complainant and thereafter the complainant himself he protest petition stating that he had no objection if the cancellation report was accepted, the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. It is argued etition was withdrawn by the complainant, there remained no This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. It is well report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police and has independent power to apply his mind to the material collected during investigation. further investigation or to disagree with the police report and take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. if the material on record discloses commission of an offence. The exercise of such power by the Magistrate is not dependent upon ishes of the complainant or the informant. Even if the protest petition filed by TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29116- the complainant is withdrawn, the Magistrate is still competent to independently examine the material placed before him and take cognizance if a prima facie case is made out. The learned Magistrate has rightly relied upon the settled legal position in this regard as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Carat Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Karnataka decided on 15.02.1989 Magistrate may take cognizance notwithstanding the filing of a cancellation report by the police. 7. Apart from the above legal position, even on merits this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order. A order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that during the investigation a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased Varun Sharma had been produced before the police. The said suicide note was sent to the Laboratory for comparison of handwriting and the report of the laboratory indicated that the questioned handwriting and the standard handwriting were of common authorship. Furthermore, the suicide note specifically named Vijay Kumar @ Tinku, Vikram Batta, Raj Kumar and Ajay Kumar @ Rinku as the persons who had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the police also formed part of the record considered by the learn aforesaid material, the learned Magistrate arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds existed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and for summoning the ac 8. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the -2022 (O&M) the complainant is withdrawn, the Magistrate is still competent to independently examine the material placed before him and take cognizance if a prima facie case The learned Magistrate has rightly relied upon the settled legal position in this regard as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Carat Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Karnataka decided on 15.02.1989 [1989 (2) SCC 132] and other judgments holding that the Magistrate may take cognizance notwithstanding the filing of a cancellation report Apart from the above legal position, even on merits this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order. A perusal of the material referred to in the order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that during the investigation a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased Varun Sharma had been produced before the police. The said suicide note was sent to the Laboratory for comparison of handwriting and the report of the laboratory indicated that the questioned handwriting and the standard handwriting were of common authorship. Furthermore, the suicide note specifically named Vijay ku, Vikram Batta, Raj Kumar and Ajay Kumar @ Rinku as the persons who had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the police also formed part of the record considered by the learned Magistrate. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the learned Magistrate arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds existed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and for summoning the ac At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the -4- the complainant is withdrawn, the Magistrate is still competent to independently examine the material placed before him and take cognizance if a prima facie case The learned Magistrate has rightly relied upon the settled legal position in this regard as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Messers India Carat Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No.105 of 1989, and other judgments holding that the Magistrate may take cognizance notwithstanding the filing of a cancellation report Apart from the above legal position, even on merits this Court finds perusal of the material referred to in the order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that during the investigation a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased Varun Sharma had been produced before the police. The said suicide note was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of handwriting and the report of the laboratory indicated that the questioned handwriting and the standard handwriting were of common authorship. Furthermore, the suicide note specifically named Vijay ku, Vikram Batta, Raj Kumar and Ajay Kumar @ Rinku as the persons who had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the police also formed ed Magistrate. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the learned Magistrate arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds existed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and for summoning the accused persons. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the the complainant is withdrawn, the Magistrate is still competent to independently examine the material placed before him and take cognizance if a prima facie case The learned Magistrate has rightly relied upon the settled legal essers Criminal Appeal No.105 of 1989, and other judgments holding that the Magistrate may take cognizance notwithstanding the filing of a cancellation report Apart from the above legal position, even on merits this Court finds perusal of the material referred to in the order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that during the investigation a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased Varun Sharma had been produced Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of handwriting and the report of the laboratory indicated that the questioned handwriting and the standard handwriting were of common authorship. Furthermore, the suicide note specifically named Vijay ku, Vikram Batta, Raj Kumar and Ajay Kumar @ Rinku as the persons who had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the police also formed ed Magistrate. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the learned Magistrate arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds existed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29116- material available on record and not to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence as would be done during trial. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reflects due application of mind to the material available on record and cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has petitioner after examining the matter in detail. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar do not call for any interference in exe 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 11. Pending March 16, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2022 (O&M) material available on record and not to conduct a detailed examination of the would be done during trial. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reflects due application of mind to the material available on record and cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner after examining the matter in detail. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar do not call for any interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- material available on record and not to conduct a detailed examination of the would be done during trial. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reflects due application of mind to the material available on record and cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned Additional also rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar do not call for any rcise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No material available on record and not to conduct a detailed examination of the would be done during trial. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reflects due application of mind to the material available on record and cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned Additional also rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar rejecting the cancellation report and taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar do not call for any TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.16 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document