IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43712-2022 Date of Decision:- 02.02.2026 Vikram Mahajan ....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Jasdeep S. Gill, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Harleen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Varun Puri, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (through V.C.).

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioner Vikram Mahajan has filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 30.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, whereby while accepting cancellation report submitted by police in FIR No. 169 dated 17.10.2020 registered under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Division No. 1 Pathankot, District Pathankot, Punjab (Annexure P-1), protest petition filed by complainant has been ordered to be registered as a private complaint, which is totally against the spirit of Code as well as law on the said subject, thus, order to this extent is illegal and liable to be set aside or issuance of any appropriate order or direction which the Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of case.

2. Learned counsel representing petitioner pointed out that petitioner being husband of complainant/respondent No. 2 Atithi Mahajan along with his entire family including his two sisters, who were already married are falsely implicated by complainant/respondent No. 2 on concocted false story. Matrimonial dispute started. Divorce petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is also pending. Matter was investigated. All other family members were declared innocent and FIR No. 0169 dated 17.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) was lodged against petitioner/husband under Section 498-A IPC. Investigation was carried out and statements of parties were recorded. Finally, police submitted cancellation report before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot on 16.11.2021. On the other hand, complainant/respondent No. 2 filed protest petition. Said cancellation report was not accepted and vide order dated 16.11.2021 (Annexure P-2), matter was remitted back for further investigation. After thorough investigation, again second cancellation report was submitted before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot on 09.05.2022. Complainant/respondent No. 2 preferred protest petition showing her dissatisfaction to cancellation report. This time, learned trial Court while agreeing with investigation done by police accepted cancellation report and at the same time ordered the protest petition to be registered as private complaint and direction was given to complainant to furnish list of witnesses and case was adjourned for preliminary evidence. Impugned order dated 30.07.2022 is Annexure P-3.

3. It is pointed out that once cancellation report was accepted and it was agreed by trial Court that no offence is made out qua present petitioner, there was no occasion for learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot to register the protest petition as complaint case. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court is against the provisions of Cr.P.C. To support his arguments, learned counsel representing petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9654 of 2017), decided on 09.07.2019, case titled “Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another” cited in 2019(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 831, where in para No.

26 of judgment, it was observed as under:-

“26. It is undoubtedly true that before a Magistrate proceeds to accept a final report under Section 173 and exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition and arrive at a conclusion thereafter. While the Investigating Officer may rest content by producing the final report, wh