Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 13 September, 2011
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No.26800 -M of 2010 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
PRITPAL SINGH & ANR.
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Ms. Navdeep, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab.
Mr. CL Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
1 Challenge in this petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-15), passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.
2 After investigation of FIR No.226 dated 9.7.2008 under Sections 332, 353, 186, 427, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Division No.6, Jalandhar (Annexure P-3), cancellation report was filed. Complainant/respondent No.2 did not agree with the cancellation report and filed a protest petition. Thereafter, the Magistrate rejected the cancellation report and directed the return of the file to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Division No.6, Jalandhar, for the purpose of Criminal Misc. No.26800 -M of 2010 (O&M) 2 reinvestigation of the case by some gazetted officer and file a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, at the earliest.
3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case.
4 Order (Annexure P-15) is a non-speaking order. It neither considers the nature of objections raised on behalf of complainant/respondent No.2 to the cancellation report, nor records the reasons that weighed with the Magistrate for ordering reinvestigation by some gazetted officer. 5 Whenever a cancellation report is filed, reasons for cancellation are given, along with supporting documents/statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, or other material. Reinvestigation should not ordinarily be directed by the Magistrate without assigning a reason. A reason could be that a witness, who was relevant, has not been examined, or that a document has not been subjected to examination by handwriting expert. Reasons would vary in the context of incident/transaction involved. Reinvestigation would amount to going through the entire gamut of investigation again.
6 Even the Magistrate could peruse and consider the cancellation report and its contents and record his reasons for ordering reinvestigation. The same has not been done, as is evident on a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-15). 7 Considering the above, the petition is allowed. 8 Order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-15) is hereby Criminal Misc. No.26800 -M of 2010 (O&M) 3 quashed. The case is referred back to Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, to enable him to pass a reasoned order. 9 The parties would appear before the Magistrate on 12.10.2011.
September 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?