Maluk Singh & Another vs State Of Punjab & Another on 8 January, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 83]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maluk Singh & Another vs State Of Punjab & Another on 8 January, 2013

Bench: Ranjit Singh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH


                         Criminal Misc.-M No.9361 of 2010 (O&M)
                         Date of Decision: January 08, 2013

Maluk Singh & another
                                                         ...Petitioners

                                 Versus

State of Punjab & another
                                                         ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:    Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
            Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr.Sukhdeep Singh Brar, Addl.A.G.Punjab,
            for the State.

                         *****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the impugned order dated 15.7.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1). Vide this order, the Magistrate has returned the cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency carrying out further investigation. Aggrieved against this action of the Magistrate, the petitioners have filed this petition against the action of the Magistrate in not accepting the cancellation report.

During the pendency of this case, matter has further been investigated. Status report in this case was filed in the court and the same was taken on record on 31.7.2012. A copy thereof was supplied to the counsel appearing for the petitioners, who had sought time to go through the same.

Criminal Misc.-M No.9361 of 2010 (O&M) :2:

Admitted position as on date is that even after re- investigation, the investigating agency has submitted a cancellation report. The court, however, has not entertained the cancellation report sought to be submitted by the investigating agency on the ground that the same should be filed in the court in the presence of the complainant.

I do not see any justification in the approach adopted by the trial court whereby it has not entertained the cancellation report. It is the right of the investigating agency to file any report after investigation.

Let the cancellation report prepared after further investigation be taken on record by the trial court. The trial court thereafter would be at liberty to deal with the same in accordance with law. Any party aggrieved against any order passed by the trial court would be at liberty to take further proceedings against the order.

In view of the facts noticed above, the present petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

January 08, 2013                                 ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh                                                JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court