CRM-M-25525-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (144) CRM-M-25525-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.07.2026 SURESH KUMAR … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Petitioner-Suresh Kumar in person. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G. Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking quashing of the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for review of the order dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed in FIR No. 539 dated 11.09.2008 registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) at Police Station Jhajjar, came to be dismissed. It is asserted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, having been passed without due consideration of the material available on record, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25525-2026 (O&M) -:2:- 1.1. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to furnish a copy of the untraced report dated 31.10.2008, alleging that despite repeated requests, the said report has not been supplied. 2. Notice of motion. 3. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. I have heard petitioner in person and learned State counsel and have carefully perused the paper book with their able assistance. 5. A plain reading of Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 makes it abundantly clear that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or recall a final order passed by the Court. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.01.2026, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate declined to entertain the review application. 5.1. It is, however, pertinent to note that the order sought to be reviewed pertained merely to the acceptance of the untraced report submitted by the Investigating Agency. Acceptance of an untraced report does not result in the cancellation or closure of the FIR; rather, the criminal proceedings remain in abeyance subject to the discovery of further material. Significantly, while accepting the untraced report vide order dated 03.12.2008, the learned Magistrate had directed the Investigating Agency to continue making earnest efforts to trace the accused. Therefore, in the event the petitioner is in possession of any credible information or material regarding the whereabouts of the accused GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25525-2026 (O&M) -:3:- or any other relevant evidence, it shall be open to the petitioner to furnish the same to the Investigating Agency, which shall examine and act upon such material strictly in accordance with law. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or ancillary thereto, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in that regard. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document