IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-28656 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 9, 2009 Jitender Pal. … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that an opportunity of hearing had not, at all, been afforded to him before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, allowed the plea by the Investigating Agency for the cancellation of the case (FIR No.464 dated 26.12.2003, Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat). It is common ground presently that it was the petitioner who filed an application (Annexure P/2) before the then Chief Minister, Haryana. The averment, in the course thereof, was with respect to certain irregularities in the matter of usurping of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Crl. Misc. No.28656 of 2009 land by certain named people. On that basis, FIR No. 464 dated 26.12.2003, came to be recorded. On investigation, it was found that the matter called for cancellation for want of proof of the charge. The cancellation report filed by the police of Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat, was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Panipat. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, appeared at that time and made the following statement which (on translation) reads as under:- “Stated that I am satisfied with the police investigation that I do not want to proceed any further investigation. The case may be cancelled.” There is plethora of law on the point that a complainant is entitled to compulsive opportunity of hearing before a Magistrate grants an order on the request made by the Investigating Agency for the cancellation of the case. It is apparent, from the material obtaining on the record, that the relevant investigation had been initiated on the basis of complaint (Annexure P/2) filed by the petitioner. It was, thus, the petitioner before this Court who was the `real’ complainant in the case. The Deputy Superintendent of Police purported to be only the Supervisory Officer of the area. In that view of things, it was plainly illogical for the police official aforementioned to inform the learned Magistrate that he did 2 Crl. Misc. No.28656 of 2009 not wish the investigation to proceed any further and that he was satisfied with the investigation thereof. It apparently amounted to the police official aforementioned being a judge in his own cause. The filing of the cancellation plea by the police had to be necessarily notified to the petitioner who only was competent to say whatever he had to in the matter of the finding of investigation. The facts aforementioned having been put to the learned State counsel, he too is not in a position to support the line of action adopted by the learned Magistrate in view of the fact that the D.S.P. was, in any case, not the complainant in the matter and it was only the present petitioner who was the `real’ complainant. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The learned Trial Magistrate shall hear the petitioner – complainant on 27.11.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner, and also the official respondents, are directed, through their learned counsel, to appear before the learned Trial Magistrate, on 27.11.2009 at 10.00 A.M. Disposed of accordingly. November 9, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3