Punjab and Haryana High Court: Discontent with cancellation report no basis for further probe

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 8

In a significant order that will change the way the trial courts order reinvestigation by the police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that complainant’s dissatisfaction with the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency cannot be the sole ground to discard the same and order further probe.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh also made it clear that the Judicial Magistrate dealing with the matter was required to elaborate upon the reasons for the dissatisfaction of the complainant with the cancellation report.

The police after probe may either file a charge sheet against the accused after concluding that an offence appears to have been committed. It may, in alternative, file a closure report stating that no offence appears to have been committed in the opinion of the police. In case of a closure report, notice is issued to the complainant or the victim.

He, in turn, can challenge the report and raise objections. The Magistrate is not obligated to accept the closure report and may deal with it in different ways, including order further investigation by cops.

Taking up the petition against the State of Punjab and other respondents by Ravinder Kumar in one such matter, Justice Raj Mohan Singh observed Nabha Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the cancellation report and the matter was sent for further investigation vide order dated October 13, 2018, in a case alleging criminal breach of trust.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh also took note of counsel Mansur Ali’s contention that the impugned order was totally non-speaking as the Court did not give reasons for the complainant’s dissatisfaction.

“The complainant being an interested party would obviously not be satisfied with the cancellation report. Recital in the impugned order that the complainant was not satisfied, in my considered view cannot be the sole ground to discard the cancellation report….,” Justice Raj Mohan Singh added.

Referring to the facts of the case in hand, the Bench added the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not elaborate upon the reasons for the complainant’s dissatisfaction except the allegation that the police did not consider the material aspects of an inquiry report in the petitioner’s favour.