267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA INDERPAL SINGH AND STATE OF PUNJAB AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. Present for quashing of FIR bearing No.74 dated 20.07.2019 registered under Sections 406/420 of IPC at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including t 12.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar in UCR of 2023 titled as cancellation report has been rejected and further investigation has been ordered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner veracity of the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 was examined thoroughly by the Investigating Officer and no substance was found. On two occasions, the cancellation report was presented Magistrate, Jalandhar has passed a cryptic order and did not accept the cancellation report merely on the statement made by the complainant that he did not agree with the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH INDERPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR bearing No.74 dated 20.07.2019 registered under Sections 406/420 of IPC at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including t 12.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar in UCR of 2023 titled as ‘State vs. Inderpal Singh and others’ cancellation report has been rejected and further investigation has been earned counsel for the petitioner veracity of the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 was examined thoroughly by the Investigating Officer and no substance was found. On two occasions, the cancellation report was presented Magistrate, Jalandhar has passed a cryptic order and did not accept the cancellation report merely on the statement made by the complainant that he did not agree with the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33315-2024 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioners. petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR bearing No.74 dated 20.07.2019 registered under Sections 406/420 of IPC at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar in UCR-37 ‘State vs. Inderpal Singh and others’, whereby the cancellation report has been rejected and further investigation has been earned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the veracity of the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 was examined thoroughly by the Investigating Officer and no substance was found. On two occasions, the cancellation report was presented and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has passed a cryptic order and did not accept the cancellation report merely on the statement made by the complainant that he did not agree with the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency. MANISHA 2025.05.06 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-33315 Thereafter, on 12.06.2024, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar accept the second cancellation report, merely on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant that he did not agree with the cancellation report. Moreover, the manner, the settled law. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in Pawan Kharbanda vs. State of Punjab and another (O & M) decided on 29.01.2025 another, in case bearing of Punjab and another Kumar Vs. State of Punjab Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of No.61926 of 2018 bearing CRM-M (P&H) 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 438 Punjab and another 11.10.2021 3. On the other hand, l factual matrix and the judgment rendered (supra). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the order passed by jurisdictional Court on in view of the judgment rendered by Further, the impugned order does not satisfy the objective standard of reason and justice and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. 33315-2024 2 Thereafter, on 12.06.2024, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar accept the second cancellation report, merely on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant that he did not agree with the cancellation report. Moreover, the manner, in which, the impugned the settled law. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in Pawan Kharbanda vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 29.01.2025, Harvail Singh Saini Vs , in case bearing CRM-M-32662 of 2012 of Punjab and another in case bearing CRM-M No.4462 Kumar Vs. State of Punjab in case bearing Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another No.61926 of 2018, Pardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another M-No.48407 of 2018, Prithvi Raj Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 438 and Nitesh Bhardwaj Punjab and another in case bearing CRM-M On the other hand, learned State counsel ual matrix and the judgment rendered by this Court in Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the order passed by jurisdictional Court on 12.06.2024 (Annexure P judgment rendered by this Court in Further, the impugned order does not satisfy the objective standard of reason and justice and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. Thereafter, on 12.06.2024, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar did not accept the second cancellation report, merely on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant that he did not agree with the cancellation report. in which, the impugned orders are passed are against the settled law. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in Pawan Kharbanda vs. State of Punjab and another in CRM-M-3193 of 2025 Harvail Singh Saini Vs State of Punjab and 32662 of 2012; Sucha Singh Versus State M No.44629 of 2017; Ravinder in case bearing CRM-M No.5036 of 2019; Punjab and another in case bearing CRM-M Pardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another in case Prithvi Raj Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab Nitesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of M No.39693-2021 decided on earned State counsel could not controvert the by this Court in Pawan Kharbanda Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the order (Annexure P-2) is not sustainable this Court in Pawan Kharbanda (supra). Further, the impugned order does not satisfy the objective standard of reason and justice and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. MANISHA 2025.05.06 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-33315 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated (Annexure P-2) is set aside and the jurisdictional Court is directed to pass a fresh order in view granting due opportunity to the investigation, if any, within 08 6. Disposed of accordingly. May 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 33315-2024 3 In view of the above, the impugned order dated ) is set aside and the jurisdictional Court is directed to pass a view of law laid down in Pawan Kharbanda granting due opportunity to the parties, to demonstrate the shortcomings in the investigation, if any, within 08 weeks. Disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the above, the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 ) is set aside and the jurisdictional Court is directed to pass a Pawan Kharbanda (supra), after , to demonstrate the shortcomings in the HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.06 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment