When Does Withdrawal of a Quashing Petition Render Proceedings Infructuous Pending Cancellation Before the Magistrate? — Clarification on Jurisdiction and Procedural Sequencing (Precedent Binding on Subordinate Courts)

The Court clarified that when a cancellation petition is pending before the Magistrate and the complainant has no objection, a simultaneous quashing petition before the High Court may be rendered infructuous if cancellation is being lawfully pursued. This decision upholds existing procedural sequencing in criminal matters and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that parties may withdraw quashing petitions before the High Court if a cancellation petition is pending before the Magistrate and the complainant does not object.
• Establishes procedural primacy for cancellation proceedings before the Magistrate in this scenario.
• Confirms that parties have liberty to lawfully pursue cancellation even after withdrawal of the High Court petition.
• Avoids conflicting or duplicative proceedings when both forums are approached.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The status report affirmed that a cancellation petition had been filed before the Magistrate and the complainant expressly recorded no objection to cancellation.
• Since proceedings before the Magistrate were kept pending due to the pendency of the High Court petition, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition before the High Court as infructuous.
• The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, explicitly granting liberty to pursue the cancellation petition pending before the learned trial court.
• The reasoning clarifies that simultaneous pursuit of related remedies is unnecessary and that party consent is central to withdrawal and continuation before the appropriate forum.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Sought permission to withdraw the present petition as it became infructuous following events before the Magistrate.
• Requested liberty to pursue cancellation before the Magistrate, referencing the complainant’s no-objection statement.

Respondent-State

• Submitted a status report by affidavit, recording the procedural stage and existence of the cancellation petition and complainant’s no objection.

Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)

• Recorded statement before the Magistrate that there was no objection if cancellation was accepted.

Factual Background

A cancellation petition was filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 08.09.2025, with the complainant stating no objection to the cancellation. However, due to the pendency of a quashing petition before the High Court, the Magistrate’s proceedings were put on hold pending the High Court’s decision. The petitioners requested withdrawal of their High Court petition as infructuous to lawfully pursue the cancellation already pending before the Magistrate.

Statutory Analysis

• The judgment clarifies procedural aspects under the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically the relationship between petitions under Section 482 CrPC for quashing before the High Court and cancellation proceedings before a Magistrate.
• No further statutory provision was discussed.

Procedural Innovations

• Confirms that liberty can be expressly granted by the High Court to allow parties to lawfully continue with cancellation proceedings after withdrawal of a quashing petition.
• Prevents dual proceedings and reiterates appropriate forum for seeking relief post-settlement where complainant has no objection.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed