IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (294)

CRM-M-24829-2018 (O & M)

Reserved on:16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.10.2025 Dalip Kaur and anr. …... Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate, for the complainant.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.05.2018 by which the cancellation report submitted by the police had been rejected and the directions for re-investigation have been issued in FIR No.109 dated 15.02.2016 under Sections 420, 177, 465, 467, 468, 472 and 120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1976, Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 109 dated 15.02.2016 under Sections 420, 177, 465, 467, 468, 472 and 120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1976, Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) came to be registered at the instance of Gurjit Singh against the petitioners.

3. On an investigation being conducted, a cancellation report (Annexure P-3) was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The Court rejected the cancellation report (Annexure P-3) and directed a further investigation to be conducted as per order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-4).

4. It is this order (Annexure P-4) which is under challenge in the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that a re-investigation could not have been ordered only on the basis of the statement of the complainant that he did not accept the cancellation report (Annexure P-3). The Court ought to have independently examined the cancellation report and only if it had come to the conclusion that the investigation had not been conducted in a proper manner, could have ordered a re-investigation. The same not having been done, the impugned order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) is liable to be quashed and the concerned Court be directed to consider the cancellation report (Annexure P-3) on merits and only then proceed in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on ‘Prithvi Raj Sehgal versus State of Punjab and others 2007(2)

RCR(Criminal) 438 and Nitesh Bhardwaj versus State of Punjab and another (CRM-M-39693-2021 decided on 11.10.2021)’.

6. The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contend that the investigation conducted is a tainted one and therefore, a re-investigation has been ordered by the Court.

Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In ‘Prithvi Raj Sehgal versus State of Punjab and others

2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 438’, this Court held as under:-

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In this case, after 33 years of the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant, a complaint under Sections 406/498-A/506 Indian Penal Code was filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. In this case, three times, the police submitted cancellation reports after conducting thorough investigation by different police officers. The allegations levelled by the complainant were found to be false. The J.M.LC., Patiala vide order dated 5.8.2003 rejected the cancellation report second time without application of mind, merely on the asking of the complainant that she was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police. Once a cancellation report is submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, he can reject the same by giving the reasons and refer the matter for further investigation; or he can take cognizance of the offence himself, but he cannot