The trial court must provide valid reasons for not accepting closure reports and must consider legal precedents when ordering further investigation.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja J. (Oral) -

CRM-10457-2022

1. Application is allowed as prayed for. Copy of order dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure P-11) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

2. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 22.02.2014 passed by the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, whereby a cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency pertaining to FIR No.17, dated 26.02.2012, under Sections 302, 148 and 149 IPC, Police Station Tarsika, District Amritsar, has not been accepted.

3. The facts of the case are that on account of unfortunate demise of one Jasbir Singh, who happened to be the brother of respondent No.2, FIR in question came to be registered against the petitioner and three others. The investigating agency after thorough investigation and finding no incriminating substance against the alleged accused, submitted a cancellation report dated 21.01.2013 before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Instead of accepting the same, the trial court sent back the matter to the investigating agency by observing that there was scope for furtgher investigation. Again a second cancellation report was filed before the trial court, however, vide order dated 22.02.2014, the trial court still refused to accept the same with similar observations of there being scope of further investigation.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated 21.01.2013 and 22.02.2014, the petitioner filed the present petition, wherein, notice of motion was issued vide order dated 21.12.2018.

5. During pendency of the present petition, again a cancellation report came to be submitted before the trial court, however, the same was again not accepted vide order dated 28.03.2017. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-11 along with CRM No.10457-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three cancellation reports have been submitted by the investigating agency in the aforementioned FIR, however, the trial court on all the three occasions refused to accept the same by passing non-speaking and unreasoned order, which as per him was against the law laid down by this Court in case of 'Harinder Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab', 2004(2) RCR (Criminal)307.

6. While referring to the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even the complainant had appeared before the concerned court on both the occassions and had supported the investigation carried out by the investigating agency with a specific statement made in this regard before the trial court.

7. Even, learned State counsel as well Sh. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/complainant also support the cancellation reports submitted by the investigating agency, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

8. Perusal of record shows that thrice cancellation report has been submitted by the investigating agency before the trial court and on all the three occasions, the trial court without even recording reasons in support has ordered for return of the same while making one line observation to the effect that there was scope of further investigation into the matter. Not even a single document or statement from the final report submitted before it has been referred to or relied upon by the trial court while recording its opinion as regards scope of further investigation. The impugned orders passed by the trial court are in total ignorance of the law laid down by this Court in Harinder Pal Singh's case (supra), which clearly records that the court has to record valid reasons while forming an opinion of not accepting the repeated closure reports submitted by the investigating agency and for passing order for futher investigation. Relevant paragraphs No.13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder:-

13. Thus, fro