Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Jitender - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Haryana & Others - Respondents
CRM-M-28395-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-10-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vipul Sherwal, Asstt. A.G., Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae., Mr. Sube S. Kaushik, Advocate and, Mr. Sandeep Ahlawat, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh K. Dhankar, Advocate, Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate and, Mr. Tarun Kumar Prashar, Advocate
The court emphasized that victims must be heard in cancellation report proceedings to ensure justice and that the acceptance of such reports without thorough examination violates due process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1), (2) - Allegations of rape and bribery - FIR filed against petitioner; subsequent medico-legal examination by victim denied allegations - Evidence of bribe paid to officials revealed - Court's acceptance of cancellation report of FIR challenged for lack of hearing aggrieved parties - Mandatory notice to victims upheld as necessary for justice. (Paras 1, 9, 20, 22)
(B) Judicial oversight - Court must apply independent thought and cannot accept police reports without thorough scrutiny; failure leads to miscarriage of justice. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged a cancellation report accepted by the Court without issuing notice to the victim or the complainant, who are the aggrieved parties. The cancellation report was based on a police officer's statement without verifying other evidential materials.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside, requiring a fresh adjudication that includes the hearing of aggrieved persons and thorough examination of the evidence.
Issues: The imperative nature of notifying victims in cancellation report considerations and the adequacy of the judicial examination of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that victims should be heard during cancellation proceedings, and mere acceptance of police reports without a thorough examination constitutes non-application of mind, violating principles of justice.
Result: Petition allowed; order to be remanded for fresh adjudication.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and fir (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments for and against the cancellation of fir (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defense's stance against petitioner's arguments (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's observations on the necessity of notice to victims (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. order remanding case for fresh adjudication (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 is for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P- 7) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Charkhi Dadri and for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of senior official police officials to investigate the matter.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Kajal W/o Vicky got registered an FIR No.136 dated 19.07.2022 U/s 376 and 506 IPC P.S. Baund Kalan against petitioner-Jitender alias Subhla S/o Chander Bhan.
3. On the very next day i.e. 20.07.2022, Kajal (prosecutrix) was taken to get recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and for her medico-legal examination. In her statement under Cr.P.C., she denied the allegations of rape. She further refused to get herself medico-legally examine.
4. On 21.07.2022, ASI Karambir Singh on the basis of a source report received information that Rs.12 lakhs had been paid by the family members of Jitender by way of settlement to prosecrutix Kajal, Rajbir Singh SHO Baund Kalan, I.O. ASI Savita and Smt. Naresh, Advocate, Charkhi Dadri. The whole plan was conceived by HC Sanjay Kumar and Smt. Naresh Kumari, Advocate The copy of the source report is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.
5. Based on the source report, an FIR No.205 dated 14.11.2023 U/s 7, 13(1), (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 384 , 389 and 34 IPC , P.S. Baund Kalan came to be registered against SHO Rajbir Singh, ASI Savita, H.C. Sanjay, Smt. Naresh, Advocate, Charki Dadri and one Sachin. The copy of the said FIR is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.
6. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Chander Bhan father of Jitender, Hardeep Singh S/o Sada Ram and Amit S/o Sukhbir Singh were recorded to the effect that they had paid a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to SHO Rajbir Singh, ASI Savita, H.C. Sanjay and Smt. Naresh, Advocate, Charki Dadri to effect a settlement in FIR No.136 dated 19.07.2022 U/s 376 and 506 IPC P.S. Baund Kalan which amount had been repaid to them. The statements were recorded on 11.02.2025 and are attached to the petition as Annexures P-3 to P-5 respectively.
7. Based on the investigation conducted, a cancellation report was submitted on 09.04.2025 which came to be accepted on the same day vide impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-7).
8. The present petition has been filed challenging the cancellation report with a further prayer to constitute an SIT of senior police officials to investigate the matter.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cancellation report has been accepted without issuing notice to the victim i.e. petitioner or Chander Bhan, father of the petitioner who are the persons aggrieved. This was all the more necessary because the impugned order itself observes that ASI Karambir Singh had no personal interest in the matter except that the source report was submitted by him in discharge of his official duties because of which the cancellation report was being accepted on the basis of the statement of one DSP Subhash Chander, DSP Badhra who had investigated the matter and submitted the cancellation report. He further contends that the cancellation report ought to have been examined carefully and could not have been accepted merely on the statement of the said DSP as has been done in the present case. He, therefore prays that the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) be quashed and the case be remanded back for a fresh adjudication on merit
