上海品茶网APL

That Complainant Not Satisfied Can’t Be Sole Ground For Rejecting Cancellation Report & Order Further Investigation: P & H HC [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesThat Complainant Not Satisfied Can’t Be Sole Ground For Rejecting Cancellation Report & Order Further Investigation: P & H HC [Read Order] Mehal Jain9 Sep 2020 2:50 AMShare This – x”That the complainant was not satisfied, cannot be the sole ground to discard the cancellation report and order further investigation”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. The petitioner before Justice Raj Mohan Singh had assailed the order dated 13.10.2018 passed by a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in a FIR registered under Section 409 IPC. A perusal of the record showed that…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”That the complainant was not satisfied, cannot be the sole ground to discard the cancellation report and order further investigation”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. The petitioner before Justice Raj Mohan Singh had assailed the order dated 13.10.2018 passed by a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in a FIR registered under Section 409 IPC. A perusal of the record showed that the Police investigated the offence and filed a cancellation report. Notice was given to the complainant, and on appearance, the complainant showed his dissatisfaction with the cancellation report submitted by the Investigating Agency. The complainant alleged that theInvestigating Agency has not considered the material aspects of the case while submitting the cancellation report. The Complainant prayed for further investigation in view of the inquiry report. The concerned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 13.10.2018 rejected the cancellation report and sent the case for further investigation with specific direction to the Police to deal with the inquiry report in detail and to give findings thereof. Before the HC, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is totally non-speaking as the Court did not give reasons as to why the complainant was not satisfied. The State counsel submitted that the Police had already prepared the cancellation report in favour of the petitioner after due investigation of the case. “The complainant being an interested party would obviously not be satisfied with the cancellation report”, ruled the Single Judge. The bench further held that the recital in the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 that the complainant was not satisfied, “in my considered view”, cannot be the sole ground to discard the cancellation report as the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not elaborated the reasons of dissatisfaction of the complainant except to allege that the Police did not consider the material aspects of inquiry report conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails) Punjab, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner. Setting aside the impugned order, the bench directed the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, to revisit the issue and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Next Storylast_img read more