136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW-313-2026 in CWP-2738-2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 BALKAR SINGH ...Review applicant/petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate Mr. Rahul Chadha, Advocate and Mr. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the review applicant-petitioner. Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG., Punjab. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The applicant through the instant application under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is seeking review of judgment dated 18.02.2026 to the extent that in para No.14, it has been wrongly recorded that the Magistrate refused to accept the cancellation report qua FIR No.66 dated 20.05.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that the Investigating Officer did not file cancellation report whereas police report was filed against ASI Hardev Singh and the petitioner was shown in column No.2. GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.07 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-313-2026 in CWP-2738-2026 -2- 3. From the perusal of record, it is apparent that the cancellation report was not filed in FIR No.66 dated 20.05.2022 whereas the police report was filed and the petitioner’s name was recorded in column No.2. 4. To the afore-said extent, para No.14 of judgment dated 18.02.2026 is hereby corrected and henceforth, the expression “the Magistrate refused to accept the cancellation report in second FIR No.66 dated 20.05.2022” used in para No.14 be read as “the Investigating Officer filed police report in FIR No.66 dated 20.05.2022 and petitioner’s name was recorded in column No.2.” 5. The review application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. July 06, 2026 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL] gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.07 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document