The High Court clarified that where a cancellation report is submitted by the prosecution following an order directing further investigation, a pending quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC becomes infructuous. The decision reaffirms established practice and provides binding authority for subordinate courts within the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/28720/2024 of BONIA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010736872024 |
| Date of Registration | 29-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Does the subsequent submission of a cancellation report during pendency of a quashing petition render the petition infructuous? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that once a cancellation report is submitted by the prosecution pursuant to a prior order for further investigation, any pending petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the petition does not survive for adjudication on merits and should be disposed of as such. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petition was under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR No.0166/2017 under Section 381 IPC and an order rejecting the untraced report and directing further investigation. The State submitted that a cancellation report had since been filed. Based on this, the petition was disposed of as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that where a cancellation report is filed by the prosecution after further investigation, any pending petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR become infructuous.
- Lawyers should review the stage of criminal proceedings and ascertain the latest prosecutorial action before pressing or contesting quashing petitions.
- The High Court will not decide on merits such petitions where the prosecution has already recommended cancellation of the case.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that after the Court’s earlier order for further investigation, the prosecution had submitted a subsequent cancellation report.
- In light of the new factual development (i.e., the filing of the cancellation report), the original request for quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC no longer survived, as the prosecutorial report itself sought to close the case.
- Therefore, the quashing petition was held to be infructuous and disposed of accordingly, obviating the need for further adjudication on merits or scrutiny of the FIR.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of FIR No.0166/2017 under Section 381 IPC and the order directing further investigation, by invoking Section 482 CrPC.
Respondent (State)
- Stated at the outset that, pursuant to the Court’s prior order, a subsequent cancellation report has already been submitted by the prosecution.
Factual Background
The matter involved a Section 482 CrPC petition for quashing an FIR (No.0166 dated 30.05.2017, under Section 381 IPC) and an order dated 07.06.2023 of the Additional CJM, Amritsar, which had rejected the prosecution’s untraced report and directed further investigation. During the pendency of the petition, the State submitted that a fresh cancellation report had since been filed, leading the Court to dispose of the petition as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court exercised its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process. It held that the Court need not adjudicate on quashing merits where a cancellation report is already filed.
- Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The FIR in question related to this provision (theft by clerk or servant).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reaffirmed the approach that filing a cancellation report after further investigation during the pendency of a quashing petition renders the latter infructuous and justifies its immediate disposal without examination on merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed established practice regarding the effect of subsequent prosecution action (filing of cancellation report) in ongoing Section 482 petitions.