IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30552-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Nishan Singh Sidhu @ Nishan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) for quashing of order dated 14.05.2022, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur in case arising out of FIR No. 31 dated 08.02.2013, registered under Section 409 of IPC at Police Station City Ferozepur, whereby while rejecting the cancellation report submitted by the police, direction had been given to submit final report or to suggest the accused to avail the remedy for quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had been booked in the aforesaid FIR for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Harjinder Singh Randhawa, District Manager, Housefed alleging that the petitioner was designated as Secretary in the department of Housefed in the year 1991. Some persons had taken loan for construction of their houses from Housefed. These loanees/borrowers were under the supervision of the petitioner and he used to make collection of money as installments of loan from these borrowers. He, however, did not deposit the amount so collected and converted the same to his personal use. He usurped an amount of Rs.12,76,211/-, which was to be deposited with Housefed. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was found that no loss had been caused t the department of Housefed or Government. A cancellation report had accordingly been prepared and presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 14.05.2022.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and the material placed on record reveals that when the aforementioned cancellation report had been presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he rejected the same by giving direction to either submit final report or to ask the accused to avail remedy for quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as after receipt of the closure report, the Magistrate could have declined to accept the police report or could have accepted the same but could not have given any direction to the police to submit the chargesheet nor he could have directed the petitioner to avail remedy of quashing of FIR. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority cited as Vasanti Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 588

5. Respondent-State has filed reply. No serious objection has been raised qua the prayer made by the petitioner.

6. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the material available on record.

7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.05.2022, it is revealed that it was one untreaceable report that had been presented before the learned trial Court but it was clarified by it that said report was actually a cancellation report. The learned trial Magistrate, after noticing that the cancellation report was prepared on the ground that the petitioner had deposited the money back with the department concerned i.e. Housefed, observed that the cancellation report could not be accepted on that ground. Even the statement of the complainant was not recorded and direction was given to the police to either submit the final report or to ask the accused to avail remedy of quashing of FIR