141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.09.2025 SUMAN LATA …… Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

*****

1. Order dated 12.07.2025 of learned JMIC, Panchkula and cancellation report submitted by the police in FIR No. 184 dated 28.10.2024 under Sections 115(2), 74, 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Sector 20, District Panchkula have been impugned in this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Facts, relevant for disposal of the petition are that FIR No. 184 dated 28.10.2024 under Sections 115(2), 74, 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Sector 20, District Panchkula was registered on complaint of petitioner Suman Lata. The matter was investigated but cancellation report was prepared by SHO/Inspector Bachchu, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula. The cancellation report was filed in the Court of the Area Magistrate. The matter was taken up in National Lok Adalat. Learned Presiding Officer, National Lok Adalat, perused the cancellation report, considered the investigation conducted by the police and expressing satisfaction with the report, accepted the same, whereafter the cancellation report was ordered to be consigned to the records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Thus, the order violated settled principles of natural justice.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, who has advance notice, appears on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 3, the State of Haryana. He has not been able to controvert the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Kumari and Anr Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1937, 2006(4) SCC 359 has observed as under:

“When a report forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) is placed before him several situations arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may either (1), accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding, or (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report.

The report may, on the other hand, state that according to the police, no offence appears to have been committed. When such a report is placed before the Magistrate he has again option of adopting one of the three courses open i.e., (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding; or (2) he may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding, take congnizance of the offence and issue process; or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3).

The position is, therefore, now well-settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused,..........

Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed:

“The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the First Information Report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commnr. of Police (1985 (2) SCC 537) held that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to dr