Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is totally non-speaking as the Court did not give
reasons as to why the complainant was not satisfied.
[6]. Learned State counsel submitted that the Police had
already prepared the cancellation report in favour of the
petitioner after due investigation of the case.
[7]. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
[8]. The complainant being an interested party would
obviously not be satisfied with the cancellation report. Recital in
the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 that the complainant was
not satisfied, in my considered view cannot be the sole ground
to discard the cancellation report as the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate has not elaborated the reasons of dissatisfaction of
the complainant except to allege that the Police did not consider
the material aspects of inquiry report dated 27.03.2018
conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails)
Punjab, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner.
[9]. Be that as it may, at this stage without forming any
opinion on merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to
direct the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha to revisit
the issue and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5036-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.09.2020
RAVINDER KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
