Crl. Misc. No. M-33343 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-33343 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.12.2010 Narayan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 9th August, 2010, passed by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to FIR No.46 dated 12th February, 2009, under Sections 323, 363, 365 and 506 IPC, an investigation was conducted and final report submitted by the investigating agency before the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh on 9th August, 2010. According to learned counsel, notice of the cancellation report was issued to the petitioner but he objected to the same vide statement, Annexure P-7. Despite this, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh accepted the report, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to file protest petition separately. Learned counsel submits that the order is self-contradictory as the court below could not have accepted the report and simultaneously given liberty to the petitioner to file protest petition. He has placed reliance on judgment reported as Bhagwant Singh Vs. Crl. Misc. No. M-33343 of 2010 2 Commissioner of Police and another (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 537. He has prayed that the case be remitted back to the trial court for decision afresh. Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio of Bhagwant Singh's case (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh while considering the cancellation report filed before him, observed as follows:- “Resultantly, cancellation report submitted by police is accepted and directed to be sent to V.R.K. Branch (Superintendent of Police) Narnaul, after doing the needful. However, complainant is at liberty to file protest petition and this order shall have no effects on the merits thereof.” It is evident that the Magistrate accepted the cancellation report. He, however, granted liberty to the complainant to file a protest petition. There is infirmity in the order as it appears to be self- contradictory. Under the circumstances, the said order is set-aside. The case is remitted back to the same court for decision afresh. Parties are directed to remain present before the court below on 24.12.2010. Disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 7.12.2010 'rajpal'