BHINDER v. VERSUS
Case Details
CRM-M-50029 50029-2023(O&M) 87 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 274 (O&M) CRM-M-50029-2023(O&M) DECIDED ON: 30.10.202 .2025 HARBHINDER SINGH @BHINDER HARBHINDER SINGH @BHINDER VERSUS VERSUS .....PETITIONER .....PETITIONER ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB AND SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE .....RESPONDENTS .....RESPONDENT Present:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J (ORAL) SURYA PRATAP SINGH 1. the Code of Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “CrPC Criminal Procedure, 1973, h , is to the ereinafter referred to as “CrPC” only, is to the order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the learned order dated 01.03.2023 Judicial Magistrate First Class , passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as ‘trial Court’. Mukerian, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ Mukerian, hereinafter being referred to 2. quashing of abovementioned order, The petitioner has sought quashing of abovementioned order, quashing of abovementioned order, n report, preferred by the Investigating Agency with whereby the cancellation report, preferred by the Investigating Agency with n report, preferred by the Investigating Agency with whereby the cancellatio regard to FIR No.24 dated 15.04.2022, under Sections 379 regard to FIR B and 34 of o.24 dated 15.04.2022, under Sections 379-B and 34 of , has been Indian Penal Code, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, has been Indian Penal Code, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur Indian Penal Code, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur rejected, and by virtue of order dated 01.03.2023, the learned trial Court has cted, and by virtue of order dated 01.03.2023, the learned trial Court has by virtue of order dated 01.03.2023, the learned trial Court has issued the bailable warrant accused. the bailable warrants against the accused. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50029 50029-2023(O&M) 87 2 3. has been filed by the petitioner on the The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is an outcome of total non ground that the tion of impugned order is an outcome of total non-application of mind, and , and that it is against the settled principle According to against the settled principles of law. According to moved a petitioner, despite the fact that the Investigating Agency had moved a petitioner, despite the fact that the Investigating Agency petitioner, despite the fact that the Investigating Agency based upon reliable piece of evidence, and even the cancellation report based upon reliable piece of evidence, and even the based upon reliable piece of evidence, and even the cancellation report complainant had not objected to the cancellation report, the learned trial complainant had not objected to the cancellation report, the learned trial complainant had not objected to the cancellation report, the learned trial complainant had not objected to the cancellation report, the learned trial Court issued bailable warrants against the petitioner. Court issued bailable warrants against the petitioner. Court issued bailable warrants against the petitioner. 4. . The same be The learned State Counsel has filed short reply. The same be The learned State Counsel has filed n record. taken on record. 5. 6. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of the instant on behalf of petitioner that the instant case is one of the rare cases, where the contents of the order itself reflects case is one of the rare cases, where the contents of the order itself reflects case is one of the rare cases, where the contents of the order itself reflects case is one of the rare cases, where the contents of the order itself reflects application of mind by the learned trial Court. It has been the total non-application of mind by the learned trial Court. It has been application of mind by the learned trial Court. It has been the total non pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the pointed out b report y learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation report was not opposed by the complainant, but despite that the learned trial Court, opposed by the complainant, but despite that the learned trial Court, by the complainant, but despite that the learned trial Court, and without taking cognizance, issued the without recording any reason, and without taking cognizance, issued the and without taking cognizance, issued the without recording any reason, bailable warrants against the petitioner. bailable warrants against the petitioner As per learned counsel for the . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, deserves to be quashed. therefore, deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that a judicial the learned State Counsel has argued that a judicial not be discretion has been exercised by the learned trial Court, and that it cannot be discretion has been exercised by the learned discretion has been exercised by the learned vest said that the discretion, so exercised by the learned trial Court, did not vest said that the discretion, so exercised by the learned trial Court, did not said that the discretion, so exercised by the learned trial Court, did not in it. 8. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50029 50029-2023(O&M) 87 3 9. The impugned order has been passed in the backdrop of the fact The impugned order has been passed in the backdrop of the fact The impugned order has been passed in the backdrop of the fact d FIR for the commission of offence punishable that the abovementioned FIR for the commission of offence punishable d FIR for the commission of offence punishable that the abovementione under Sections 379B and 34 of IPC was lodged at the instance under Sections 379B and 34 of IPC of respondent was lodged at the instance of respondent Sarabjit Singh, who had alleged that his WagonR car bearing No.2-Sarabjit Singh, who had alleged that his WagonR car bearing Sarabjit Singh, who had alleged that his WagonR car bearing Sarabjit Singh, who had alleged that his WagonR car bearing registration No.PB40-A-3295 had been forcibly registration No.PB40 had been forcibly taken away. When the FI taken away. When the FIR on the basis of abovementioned allegations was lodged, and the investigation on the basis of abovementioned allegations was lodged, and the investigation on the basis of abovementioned allegations was lodged, and the investigation on the basis of abovementioned allegations was lodged, and the investigation to the conclusion that there was taken up, the Investigating Agency reached to the conclusion that there was taken up, the Investigating Agency reached taken up, the Investigating Agency reached the abovementioned allegations, and thus, the cancellation no substance in the abovementioned allegations, and thus, the cancellation the abovementioned allegations, and thus, the cancellation no substance in report was submitted before the Court. report was 10. The factual matrix of the present case further reveals that when The factual matrix of the present case further reveals that when The factual matrix of the present case further reveals that when the cancellation report was received by the learned trial Court, the cancellation report was received notice was by the learned trial Court, notice was issued to the complainant, who on 01.03.2023 appeared before the learned issued to the complainant, who on 01.03.2023 appeared before the learned issued to the complainant, who on 01.03.2023 appeared before the learned issued to the complainant, who on 01.03.2023 appeared before the learned stated that he had no objection if the cancellation report is trial Court, and stated that he had no objection if the cancellation report is stated that he had no objection if the cancellation report is trial Court, and accepted. Despite the abovementioned stand, taken by the complainant accepted. Despite the abovementioned stand, taken by the complainant accepted. Despite the abovementioned stand, taken by the complainant accepted. Despite the abovementioned stand, taken by the complainant the following order was passed by the learned before the learned trial Court, the following order was passed by the learned the following order was passed by the learned before the learned trial Court, trial Court:- trial Court “Sarabjit Singh complainant come present and got recorded his Sarabjit Singh complainant come present and got recorded his statement that he is very poor person. He cannot fight with the statement that he is very poor person. He cannot fight with the statement that he is very poor person. He cannot fight with the people of Finance Company. The accused was from New PGR people of Finance Company. The accused was from New PGR people of Finance Company. The accused was from New PGR Finance Company. So therefore he being afraid from the Finance Company. So therefore he being afraid from the Finance Company. So therefore he being afraid from the accused agreed with the cancellation report submitte d by the accused agreed with the cancellation report submitted by the police. He has no objection if the cancellation report submitted police. He has no objection if the cancellation report submitted police. He has no objection if the cancellation report submitted by the police be accepted. ASI Gurvinderjit Singh come present and got recorded ASI Gurvinderjit Singh come present and got recorded ASI Gurvinderjit Singh come present and got recorded his statement that he identify the complainant Sarabjit Singh his statement that he identify the complainant Sarabjit Singh his statement that he identify the complainant Sarabjit Singh 3 Rampura R/o Mohalla Ajit Nagar Gali No.3 Rampura S/o Kaka Singh R/o Mohalla Ajit Nagar hul Distt. Bhatinda. in the Court today. Phul PS Rampura Phul Distt. Bhatinda. in the Court today. So So So in view of in view of in view of the statement of Sarabjit Singh the statement of Sarabjit Singh the statement of Sarabjit Singh complainant. cancellation report is ordered to be rejected. Let complainant. cancellation report is ordered to be rejected. Let complainant. cancellation report is ordered to be rejected. Let bailable warrant of the accused be issued for 01.04.2023.” bailable warrant of the accused be issued for 01.04.2023. 11. the learned A bare perusal of abovementioned order shows that the learned A bare perusal of abovementioned order shows that trial Court has not given any reason for issuing bailable warrants against the trial Court has not given any reason for issuing bailable warrants against the trial Court has not given any reason for issuing bailable warrants against the trial Court has not given any reason for issuing bailable warrants against the GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50029 50029-2023(O&M) 87 4 petitioner. So much so, even this fact has not been mentioned in the petitioner. So much so, even this fact has not been mentioned in the petitioner. So much so, even this fact has not been mentioned in the petitioner. So much so, even this fact has not been mentioned in the abovementioned order that there was sufficient abovementioned order that material available on record there was sufficient material available on record for proceeding against the petitioner, and even any reference with regard to for proceeding against the petitioner, and even any reference with regard to for proceeding against the petitioner, and even any reference with regard to for proceeding against the petitioner, and even any reference with regard to The impugned order passed by the taking of cognizance was not mentioned. The impugned order passed by the taking of cognizance was not mentioned. taking of cognizance was not mentioned. learned trial Court does not disclose on learned trial Court on record, on what material available on record, this conclusion that the cognizance against the petitioner should conclusion was drawn that the cognizance against the petitioner should that the cognizance against the petitioner should neither the prosecuting agency wanted to be taken. It is very strange that neither the prosecuting agency wanted to neither the prosecuting agency wanted to be taken. aggrieved party, i.e. complainant, but the prosecute the petitioner, nor the aggrieved party, i.e. complainant, but the aggrieved party, i.e. complainant, but the prosecute any reference to the material available on record, learned trial Court without any reference to the material available on record, any reference to the material available on record, learned trial Court without straight away issued bailable warrants against the petitioner. straight away issued bailable warrants against the petitioner. straight away issued bailable warrants against the petitioner. 12. While dealing with similar situation, this Court in Criminal similar situation, this Court in Criminal Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab’, Misc. No.14320-M of 2002, titled as ‘Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ Misc. No.14320 decided on 13.12.2002, has observed that decided on 13.12.2002 if the cancellation report is not has observed that if the cancellation report is not accepted, and summoning order is passed by the Court of Judicial accepted, and summoning order is passed by the Court of Judicial accepted, and summoning order is passed by the Court of Judicial accepted, and summoning order is passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, the order should be a speaking order. Magistrate In the abovementioned be a speaking order. In the abovementioned case, the order was passed by the Judicial case, the order was in a case, wherein the Judicial Magistrate in a case, wherein the The abovementioned case, complainant had opposed the cancellation report. The abovementioned case, complainant had opposed the cancellation report. complainant had opposed the cancellation report. to some extent, was standing on a better footing than the case in hand to some extent, was standi ng on a better footing than the case in hand. 13. Similar situation has been dealt with by the High Court of Similar situation has been dealt with by the High Court Similar situation has been dealt with by the High Court Himachal Pradesh in CrMMO No.426 of 2019 Himachal Pra Pushpinder Singh CrMMO No.426 of 2019, titled as ‘Pushpinder Singh Vs. Stae of Himachal Pradesh’ decided on 04.09.2019 Vs. Stae of Himachal Pradesh wherein it has been decided on 04.09.2019, wherein it has been discretion to accept or reject the cancellation/closure held that the Court has discretion to accept or reject the cancellation/closure discretion to accept or reject the cancellation/closure held that the Court ha t the discretion has to be report filed by the Investigating Officer, but the discretion has to be report filed by the Investigating Officer, bu report filed by the Investigating Officer, bu exercised only after evaluating the report, vis exercised only after evaluating vis, material placed on report, vis-à-vis, material placed on It has further been observed while referring to the observations made record. It has further been observed while referring to the observations made It has further been observed while referring to the observations made It has further been observed while referring to the observations made GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50029 50029-2023(O&M) 87 5 Krishnanand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 in the case of ‘Krishnanand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 Krishnanand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 in the case of ‘ that refusal to accept cancellation report without going Supreme Court 796, that refusal to accept cancellation report without going that refusal to accept cancellation report without going Supreme Cour into the details given in the closure report, into the details given in the closure report , is erroneous. 14. Crl. Misc. Application The High Court of Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application The High Court of Allahabad in Chandra Pal @Chachchu and Ors. Vs. State No.14050 of 2008, titled as ‘Chandra Pal @Chachchu and Ors. Vs. State Chandra Pal @Chachchu and Ors. Vs. State No.14050 of 2008 U.P. &Anr.’, decided on 23.06.2008, has gone to the extent that U.P. &Anr.’, decided on 23.06.2008 of U.P. &Anr.’, decided on 23.06.2008 has gone to the extent that it unless the protest petition against the petitioner is filed, observed that unless the protest petition against the petitioner is filed, unless the protest petition against the petitioner is filed, observed that cognizance against the accused cannot be taken by the cognizance against the accused Magistrate. cannot be taken by the Judicial Magistrate. 15. In the light of abovementioned settled principles of law, if the In the light of abovementioned settled principles of law, if the In the light of abovementioned settled principles of law, if the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that the impugned factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that the impugned factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that the impugned factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that the impugned order is perverse, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, the contents order is perverse, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, the contents order is perverse, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, the contents order is perverse, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, the contents definite conclusion that the learned trial of the impugned order leads to a definite conclusion that the learned trial definite conclusion that the learned trial of the impugned order and legal aspects Court has failed to apply its judicial mind to fact situation and legal aspects Court has failed to apply its judicial mind Court has failed to apply its judicial mind in the present case. Therefore, there is need of indulgence and interference in in the present case. Therefore, there is need of indulgence and interference in in the present case. Therefore, there is need of indulgence and interference in in the present case. Therefore, there is need of indulgence and interference in the impugned order, by exercising the extra the impugned order , by exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 16. As a sequel of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held As a sequel of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held As a sequel of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, by accepting that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, by accepting that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, by accepting that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, by accepting
Decision
the impugned order is hereby quashed. the present petition, the impugned order is hereby quashed. the present petition, 17. on(s), if any, shall stand Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand Pending miscellaneous applicati disposed of. disposed of. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable :Yes/No :Yes/No : Yes/No : Yes/ GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document