Crl. Misc. No. M-10887 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-10887 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2011. Gurjant Singh and others ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 106 dated 11.04.2006, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga and all other proceedings, arising therefrom, including the order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-13). After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, the FIR in question was duly investigated and the final report was presented against the accused Gurjant Singh Bhutto being proclaimed offender along with other accused. An application was moved by the prosecution for permission to further investigate the matter. The said Crl. Misc. No. M-10887 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 03.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) and the following order was passed:- “Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against accused Gurjant Singh Bhutto being proclaimed offender alongwith other accused. Accused Gurjant Singh Bhutto was declared as Proclaimed Offender in this case and he has not appeared before court. Now it has been pointed out by learned APP for the State that new facts came into the notice of Investigating Agency so they be allowed to conduct the further investigation. In view of the submissions made by learned APP for the State and in view of the averments of the application, permission for conducting further investigation is allowed under the provisions of law. Investigating Officer is also directed to submit status of investigation and after completion of investigation to submit his report. However, these observations of mine shall have no effect on the merits of the main case. Application disposed of accordingly.” The petitioners approached this court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-3187 of 2009 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-3579 of 2009 seeking quashing of FIR No. 106 dated 11.4.2006 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga. Since, the cancellation report had been filed before the trial court, the said petitions were disposed of with the Crl. Misc. No. M-10887 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - direction to consider the cancellation report by this court vide order dated 04.3.2009. In the inquiry conducted by the investigating agency, the petitioners were found innocent. The trial court, however, dealing with the said cancellation report held that the police had reinvestigated the matter without permission of the court and the report filed by the prosecution under Section 178(8) Cr.P.C. was rejected. Admittedly, the Magistrate had allowed the prosecution to further investigate the case. A perusal of the Annexure R-1 reveals that the matter was not reinvestigated by the police but was further investigated by the police. In fact, statements of various persons were recorded at the time of further investigation and thereafter, the report was submitted by the investigating agency. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to allow the petition and remand the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The trial court would be at liberty to accept or reject the cancellation report on merits but the same could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it amounted to reinvestigation. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE August 25, 2011 Gurpreet