IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-18982 of 2008 Date of decision : 30.01.2009 Sat Parkash Khanna and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) On the last date of hearing when the case came up following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that petitioner has merely taken cognizance after having rejected the cancellation report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Counsel further refers to order Annexure P-14 and states that a careful reading of the said order, clearly shows that no directions have been given therein for filing the challan. According to the counsel it is merely a direction to register the challan, which is within the purview of the said Court. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon Crl. Misc No. M-18982 of 2008 -2- judgment reported as Abinandan Jha and others Vs. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968, Supreme Court, 117 and contended that the Magistrate was well within his powers to disagree with the cancellation report submitted by the police, and to proceed with the case after taking cognizance of the same. However, arguing counsel for the petitioner is not available. The case stands adjourned to 30.01.2009 for final arguments. “ Counsel for the petitioners has today submitted that it is not clear from the impugned order (Annexure P-4) whether the Magistrate intends to proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 190 (1)(a) or 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. or as a complaint case under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the Magistrate can proceed under either of the two provisions of Cr.P.C but he has not made anything clear in his order. On the other hand leaned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Magistrate has merely disagreed with the cancellation report and decided to take cognizance of the matter. Counsel further submits that the controversy involved at this stage is only as regards the procedure to be adopted by the trial court after filing of cancellation report by the police and the same shall be resolved in due course after the trial court proceeds further as the court has decided to take cognizance. According to the counsel, it is clear from the impugned order that no direction has been issued to police to submit a charge-sheet. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is clear that notice of motion was issued in this case on the ground that court cannot Crl. Misc No. M-18982 of 2008 -3- direct the investigating agency to file challan. The order dated 30.07.2009 passed by this Court reads thus : “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order vide which directions have been issued to file challan cannot be sustained in law. Notice of motion to A.G., Punjab and respondent No. 2 for 10.09.2008. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.” However, perusal of the impugned order, Annexure P-14, shows that the trial court decided to summon the accused for offences under Sections 420,463,464,471,120-B IPC, after entertaining a protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2, Rakesh Khanna. There appears to be no direction whatsoever to the police to present a challan against the accused. In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all their pleas on law and facts before the trial court at an appropriate stage. 30.01.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE