Re-investigation of a case must be justified by new evidence; mere dissatisfaction with a cancellation report does not suffice. The right to a speedy trial is fundamental and should not be undermined by prolonged investigations.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of crosscase /DDR No.22 dated 05.06.2012 registered under Sections 323 , 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) ( Sections 307 , 382, 148, 149 of IPC were deleted later on), in FIR No.119 dated 05.06.2012 under Sections 323 , 324, 326, 506, 534 of IPC, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as the order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, whereby the cancellation report was rejected and the matter was sent back for re-investigation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2012, when the petitioner was putting posters for promotion of his sister-in-law, who was contesting elections for the post of Councilor, then Satish Kumar, Pradeep Naagar and Shelly stopped him and raised lalkara, stating that no one else can contest elections in their ward. Thereafter, Vinod Kumar Noda and Bittu etc., armed with swords, baseball bats and sticks, came at the spot and they started beating the brother of the petitioner, namely Vinod Kharbanda as well as his cousin, namely Pawan Taneja. On coming to know about the incident, the complainant along with his brother Kishan Kharbanda reached at the spot. Satish Naagar gave a sword blow, that hit the head of Kishan Kharbanda and another blow to the elbow and arm of Vinod Kharbanda. When an alarm was raised to rescue them, the assailants fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Vinod Kharbanda, Kishan Kharbanda and Pawan Taneja were got admitted in DMC Hospital, for treatment. With these allegations, FIR (supra) was registered.

3. On the other hand, Satish Naagar, accused in FIR (supra) got registered a cross-case vide DDR (supra), alleging that when they reached Sarpanch street, the petitioner and 20-25 other persons abused them and hit them with sticks and kirpans. The petitioner gave a pistol butt blow on the head of Satish Naagar and also fired bullet shots towards him.

4. Subsequently, the investigation was conducted and offences under Section 326, 324, 323, 506, 34 of IPC were found to be made out in the FIR case and accordingly, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. [now Section 193 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS )] (Annexure P-2) was presented on 16.09.2016. However, in the DDR case, a cancellation report was filed, stating that no police interference was warranted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that respondent No.2 did not institute any complaint after the cancellation report was filed in the year 2020. After a delay of three years, respondent No.2 had approached this Court by filing CRM-M-51659-2023 seeking directions to the official respondents for presentation of final report in the DDR case and vide order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), a notice was issued therein, however, respondent No.2 failed to disclose that Section 323 of IPC (now Section 115 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) is non-cognizable in nature. Further, status report by way of affidavit dated 29.04.2024 was filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (North), Ludhiana (Annexure P-7) stating that the petitioner was found innocent in the DDR case. Learned Court below has erred in ordering re-investigation at the fag end of the trial, especially in view of the fact that 12 years have passed since the alleged incident, which occurred on 05.06.2012. A pe