Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, whereby cancellation report was rejected on the protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent No.2 and petitioner was summoned to face the criminal trial, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), for quashing the impugned protest petition (Annexure P-1) as well as the impugned summoning order dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P-2).

2. Notice of motion was issued and further proceedings were stayed vide order dated 07.01.2010. Reply by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-State. Separate reply was filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the detailed reasons given by the investigating agency, in its reply filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Ajay Maluja, Superintendent of Police (Detective), Bathinda, in the Civil Writ Petition No.18059 of 2004 filed by the petitioner, which is available on pages 92-94 of the paper book, submits that each and every relevant aspect of the matter was discussed in minute details, before presenting the cancellation report in favour of the petitioner. He submits that learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction, while not considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the investigating agency has conducted an independent and effective investigation, before presenting the cancellation report, mere disagreement of the complainant with the said cancellation report, would not be sufficient to reject the same. In the present case, complainant took a specific stand in the civil suits at Annexure P-20 and P-30 and now he was trying to back out from the same, which was totally unfair on his part. He also refers to a DO letter dated 13.04.2005 written by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda to the Home Secretary of the State of Punjab, which speaks volumes in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent-complainant, including the effective investigation. Leaned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that even if the allegations in the impugned FIR were taken to be true on their facevalue, still no offence of any kind, whatsoever, was made out against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the following judgments: -

1. Velji Raghavji Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1965 AIR (SC) 1433. (Hon’ble Supreme Court)

2. V.R. Dalal and ors. Vs. Yougendra Naranji Thakkar and anr., [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2417] : 2008 AIR (SC) 2793. (Hon’ble Supreme Court)

3. Md Ibrahim and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr., [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3310] : 2009 (8) SCC 751 (Hon’ble Supreme Court)

4. Prithvi Raj Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab and ors., 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 438. (Pb & HR High Court)

5. Kuldip Raj Mahajan Vs. Hukam Chand, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 370. (Pb & HR High Court)

4. He concluded by submitting that since the petitioner and the complainant-respondent were closely related with each other, every possible effort was made, before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, to arrive at an amicable settlement but it was always the complainantrespondent who never cooperated. In fact, he never came forward to join the mediation proceedings, in spite of the fact that petitioner as well as complainant-respondent are senior citizens. He prays for quashing the impugned protest petition (Annexure P-1) as well as the impugned summoning order (Annexure P-2), by allowing the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the State has fairly stated that since the cancellation report was prepared and presented by the investigating