CRM-M/39478/2026 of AMNINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS on 20 July 2026

1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue a Police Clearance Certificate (for short ‘PCC’) to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

1.1. The petitioner asserts that he was found innocent during the course of investigation in FIR No. 15 dated 28.01.2018, registered under Sections 447, 511 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 329, 395 and 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Doraha, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana. Consequently, the investigating agency prepared a Cancellation Report

-:2:- dated 11.08.2018, which was presented before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal, District Ludhiana, on 29.03.2025. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, despite the filing of the cancellation report and in the absence of any order taking cognizance or issuance of process against him, the respondent authorities have unlawfully withheld the issuance of the PCC solely on the ground that a protest petition preferred by the complainant remains pending consideration before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal. According to the petitioner, such refusal is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and violative of his vested rights, as the mere pendency of a protest petition, without cognizance having been taken by the competent Court, cannot constitute a lawful impediment to the issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate.

2. Notice of motion.

3. At this stage, Mr. Gurpartap Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition with considerable vehemence and has prayed for its dismissal.

3.1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book, the pleadings, and the material placed on record with their able assistance.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully examined the material available on record. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the non-issuance of a PCC despite the investigating agency having submitted a cancellation report in the FIR in

-:3:- question. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal, did not accept the cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency. Instead, the learned Magistrate rejected the same and proceeded to treat the matter as a complaint case, whereupon the proceedings are presently pending before the competent Court.

4.1. It is, therefore, evident that the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR have not attained finality and remain sub-judice before the Court competent to adjudicate the controversy. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, the issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate merely on the strength of the cancellation report submitted by the police, particularly when the competent Court has declined to accept the same and has chosen to proceed further in accordance with law.

4.2. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of this Court in Daler Singh v. Union of India and others, 2015 (8) RCR (Civil) 618, is wholly misconceived and clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the Coordinate Bench was dealing with a situation where only a complaint was pending and no cognizance had been taken by the competent Court. It was in those peculiar circumstances that the Court held that the matter did not fall within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and consequently directed the issuance of the requisite clearance. The factual matrix of the present case stands on an entirely different footing, as the

-:4:- cancellation report has already been rejected by the competent Court and the matter is now pending as a complaint case.

4.3. Likewise, the reliance placed on Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and others (Law Finder Document ID No. 2164049) is equally misplaced. That case pertained to a stage where the criminal case was merely under investigation, whereas in the present matter, the investigation has culminated in the submission of a cancellation report, which has subsequently been rejected by the learned Magistrate, who has decided to proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law. Thus, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments does not advance the case of the petitioner.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, since the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR continue to remain pending before the competent Court consequent upon the rejection of the cancellation report, no writ in the nature of Mandamus can be issued directing the respondent-authorities to issue a Police Clearance Certificate to the petitioner at this stage. The action of the respondent-authorities in withholding the issuance of the Police Clearance Certificate, in the backdrop of the subsisting criminal proceedings, cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, or dehors the provisions of law. Consequently, finding no infirmity in the impugned action and no ground warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

-:5:-

6. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 20.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No