Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitioner-Harvail Singh Saini was a Municipal Councilor in Municipal Council Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. An FIR No.7 dated 20.01.2000 was registered under Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as `the PC Act') and 379 IPC at Police Station Garhshankar on the basis of complaint made by one Surinder Kumar, who was working as a contractor.

2. As per allegations in the FIR, a cheque, amounting to Rs. onlac was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Garhshankar on 15.12.1999 to the complainant. However, on receiving the said cheque, the petitioner asked the complainant to show it to him and on showing, the said cheque was snatched by the petitioner and it was kept in his pocket and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to him as a commission. It is also mentioned in the complaint by the complainant that he was given pushes and was turned out of the Office of Municipal Council.

3. An inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D) and the allegations levelled in the complaint were found to be false. However, on the basis of said inquiry, an untrace report was submitted before the trial Court, which was not accepted vide order dated 13.08.2001 and the same was returned for further investigation. The matter was again investigated into by the police and again an untrace report was filed on 11.09.2007, which was again rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 22.08.2008. For the third time also, on presentation of the cancellation report by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garhshankar, before the trial Court, it was again rejected vide order dated 22.01.2011. The matter was investigated into for the fourth time and again, the cancellation report was submitted on 30.08.2012. Vide Order dated 14.09.2012, it was mentioned that the complainant has appeared and made a statement that he does not agree with the police report and the complaint was again sent back to Vigilance Bureau for reinvestigation.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.7 dated 20.01.2000 as well as Order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, as the trial Court has ordered for reinvestigation for the fifth time in spite of submission of four cancellation reports within a period of thirteen years.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thorough investigation has been conducted and the cancellation reports were filed by different Officers of higher rank and only on this ground that the complainant has not agreed with the cancellation report, the FIR has been sent to the Vigilance Bureau for reinvestigation. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant himself has given a statement before the Court that a new cheque was re-issued to him and nothing is due towards the Municipal Council, Garhshankar and has no grievance in the matter. Learned counsel also submits that the statement of the complainant made on 14.09.2012 has not been considered. The petitioner is facing litigation for the last more than 13 years and in spite of filing cancellation reports repeatedly, the trial Court is not accepting the same and sending it for reinvestigation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in cases Harinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 307as well as Prithvi Raj Sehgal v. State of Punjab and others 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 438, in support of his contentions.

7. Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of filing cancellation reports on four different occasions and order of the trial Court for reinvestigation.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of order passed by the trial Court, I find that there is a merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the p