IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

274 CRM-M-50029-2023(O&M)

DECIDED ON: 30.10.2025 HARBHINDER SINGH @BHINDER .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J (ORAL)

1. Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” only, is to the order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Mukerian, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’.

2. The petitioner has sought quashing of abovementioned order, whereby the cancellation report, preferred by the Investigating Agency with regard to FIR No.24 dated 15.04.2022, under Sections 379-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, has been rejected, and by virtue of order dated 01.03.2023, the learned trial Court has issued the bailable warrants against the accused.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is an outcome of total non-application of mind, and that it is against the settled principles of law. According to petitioner, despite the fact that the Investigating Agency had moved a cancellation report based upon reliable piece of evidence, and even the complainant had not objected to the cancellation report, the learned trial Court issued bailable warrants against the petitioner.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed short reply. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the instant case is one of the rare cases, where the contents of the order itself reflects the total non-application of mind by the learned trial Court. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation report was not opposed by the complainant, but despite that the learned trial Court, without recording any reason, and without taking cognizance, issued the bailable warrants against the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that a judicial discretion has been exercised by the learned trial Court, and that it cannot be said that the discretion, so exercised by the learned trial Court, did not vest in it.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. The impugned order has been passed in the backdrop of the fact that the abovementioned FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 379B and 34 of IPC was lodged at the instance of respondent No.2-Sarabjit Singh, who had alleged that his WagonR car bearing registration No.PB40-A-3295 had been forcibly taken away. When the FIR on the basis of abovementioned allegations was lodged, and the investigation taken up, the Investigating Agency reached to the conclusion that there was no substance in the abovementioned allegations, and thus, the cancellation report was submitted before the Court.

10. The factual matrix of the present case further reveals that when the cancellation report was received by the learned trial Court, notice was issued to the complainant, who on 01.03.2023 appeared before the learned trial Court, and stated that he had no objection if the cancellation report is accepted. Despite the abovementioned stand, taken by the complainant before the learned trial Court, the following order was passed by the learned trial Court:-

“Sarabjit Singh complainant come present and got recorded his statement that he is very poor person. He cannot fight with the people of Finance Company. The accused was from New PGR Finance Company. So therefore he being afraid from the accused agreed with the cancellation report submitted by the police. He has no objection if the cancellation report submitted by the police be accepted.

ASI Gurvinderjit Singh