The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the principles of natural justice are not optional in criminal proceedings, particularly when a magistrate considers accepting a police cancellation report. This judgment clarifies that failure to hear the complainant before dismissing a case renders the order legally unsustainable, regardless of procedural technicalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from FIR No. 181 dated 22.07.2021, registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The investigation concluded with the police submitting a cancellation report to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate, asserting insufficient evidence to proceed against the accused.
Key Facts
- The complainant’s address was recorded in the FIR as the basis for service of notices.
- The Ilaqa Magistrate issued notices to the complainant, but they were returned unserved with the report that the complainant was not available at the given address.
- No protest petition was filed by the complainant following the issuance of the cancellation report.
- The Ilaqa Magistrate accepted the cancellation report vide order dated 29.08.2024.
- The complainant subsequently filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.
- The Sessions Judge allowed the revision on 15.09.2025, setting aside the Magistrate’s order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity to the complainant to be heard.
- The petitioner challenged this revision order before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- On 24.02.2026, after the High Court’s judgment, the complainant appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur, and the matter remains pending.
Procedural History
- 22.07.2021: FIR No. 181 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC.
- 22.05.2023: Punjab & Haryana High Court, in CRM-M No. 31724 of 2021, directed State counsel to inform about preparation and filing of cancellation reports.
- 29.08.2024: Ilaqa Magistrate accepted cancellation report without hearing the complainant.
- 15.09.2025: Additional Sessions Judge allowed revision petition, set aside Magistrate’s order, and remanded for fresh hearing.
- 01.04.2026: High Court dismissed the petition under Section 528 BNS, upholding the Sessions Judge’s order.
- 24.02.2026: Complainant appeared before the Magistrate post-remand, as recorded on the court’s website.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that:
- The State had already complied with the procedural requirement under CRM-M No. 31724 of 2021 by informing the court of the cancellation report’s filing.
- The complainant had been given multiple opportunities to appear, but failed to do so.
- The Magistrate had granted liberty to file a protest petition, making the revision petition redundant.
- The revision petition was not maintainable under Pinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, as no protest petition was filed after acceptance of the cancellation report.
For the Respondent (State)
The State supported the petitioner’s arguments, agreeing that the revision petition was not maintainable and that natural justice had been satisfied.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Sessions Judge’s order dated 15.09.2025, restoration of the Magistrate’s order dated 29.08.2024, and dismissal of the revision petition as legally unsustainable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Magistrate is obligated to afford an opportunity of hearing to the complainant before accepting a police cancellation report, even if the complainant fails to appear despite notice, and whether failure to do so vitiates the order under principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Pinder Kaur v. State of Punjab to argue that once a cancellation report is accepted and no protest petition is filed, the complainant’s remedy lies in filing a private complaint, not in invoking revisional jurisdiction. It was further contended that the State’s compliance with the High Court’s directive in CRM-M No. 31724 of 2021 constituted sufficient notice, and that the complainant’s non-appearance waived any right to be heard. The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge’s remand was an unnecessary procedural overreach.
For the Respondent/State
The State concurred with the petitioner’s submissions, asserting that the Magistrate had acted within procedural bounds and that the revision petition was an abuse of process. No independent arguments were advanced by the State beyond supporting the petitioner’s position.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the judgment in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another (AIR 1985 SC 1285), which unequivocally held that the Magistrate must afford the complainant an opportunity to be heard before accepting a cancellation report. The Court emphasized that this is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive safeguard under the principles of natural justice.
"The requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing to the complainant before acceptance of the cancellation report is not an empty formality, but a mandatory safeguard to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the State’s prior communication under CRM-M No. 31724 of 2021 satisfied the obligation. It clarified that notice of the filing of the report is not equivalent to an opportunity to be heard. The complainant must be given a chance to present reasons why the report should not be accepted, regardless of whether they previously failed to appear.
The Court further held that the grant of liberty to file a protest petition does not absolve the Magistrate of the duty to hear the complainant before accepting the cancellation report. The two remedies are distinct: protest petitions are post-acceptance remedies, while the hearing requirement is a pre-acceptance safeguard.
The Court noted that the Sessions Judge’s order did not adjudicate the merits of the case but merely restored the matter to the stage where the law requires the complainant to be heard. The remand was narrow, procedural, and did not prejudice the accused.
The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that, as of 24.02.2026, the complainant had appeared before the Magistrate, confirming that the remand served its intended purpose without delay or prejudice.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 15.09.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 29.08.2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity to hear the complainant. The Court confirmed that the remand was lawful, necessary, and limited in scope. No monetary relief or costs were awarded, as the matter was procedural in nature.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hearing Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now treat the opportunity to be heard as a non-negotiable step before any cancellation report is accepted.
- Even if the complainant has been previously unresponsive, the Magistrate must issue a fresh notice specifically inviting submissions on the cancellation report.
- Failure to do so will render the order voidable, regardless of the complainant’s conduct.
Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not an Abuse of Process
- Revision petitions under Section 528 BNS are maintainable even if no protest petition was filed.
- The existence of a private complaint remedy does not extinguish the right to challenge procedural irregularities in the cancellation process.
- Courts must distinguish between substantive remedies (private complaint) and procedural safeguards (hearing before cancellation).
Procedural Compliance Trumps Technical Defenses
- The State’s compliance with prior court directions does not substitute for compliance with statutory and constitutional obligations.
- Courts will not accept arguments that complainants "waive" their right to be heard simply because they did not appear to earlier notices.
- The burden lies squarely on the Magistrate to ensure compliance with natural justice before concluding proceedings.
