Crl. Misc. No. M-19664 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19664 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Nirmal Chand @ Nimma …..Petitioner Vs. Gian Chand and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, the cancellation report in case under Section 306 IPC has been rejected on the basis of the protest petition and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 306 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no order has been passed regarding the FIR. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the impugned order that the protest petition filed by the complainant- Gian Chand in cancellation report has been treated as a complaint and on the basis of the statements of the complainant which were recorded the Court Crl. Misc. No. M-19664 of 2010 [2] has opted to summon the petitioner as an accused to face trial under Section 306 IPC. The trial Court had an authority to take cognizance of the protest petition as a complaint which was filed in cancellation proceedings. There does not appear to be any infirmity in the order of the trial Court dated February 17, 2010 opting to take cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC. The plea of the petitioner that once he has been held innocent and the prosecution having opted to present cancellation report in FIR under Section 306 IPC, he cannot be tried under Section 306 IPC. I do not find any force in the said contention. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. cognizance cannot be taken in the compliant which in the present case is in the shape of protest petition. There is no force in the same. All the pleas of defence can always be taken up by the petitioner during the trial. The plea that on account of FIR No.231 dated September 11, 2006 under Section 306 IPC having resulted in cancellation report, the cognizance has wrongly been taken is of no avail to the petitioner. The said plea may be raised as defence to create a doubt regarding the authenticity of the allegations levelled by Gian Chand regarding abetment of suicide of his daughter Manjit Kaur who had allegedly an affair with the petitioner. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner prays that the right of liberty of the petitioner should be protected. Crl. Misc. No. M-19664 of 2010 [3] In this context, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the remedy under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. July 23, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE