Amrinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-3073-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 Amrinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 12.11.2022 whereby Lok Adalat, Ferozepur has rejected cancellation report dated 22.07.2022 filed by Investigating Agency. 2.

The petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No.4 on 23.02.2016. A female child was born from this wedlock. The petitioner is residing in Canada. The respondent No.4 lodged complaint against petitioner on 31.10.2018. The complaint was lodged with NRI Commission which directed police authorities to register FIR. Police registered FIR No.24 dated 08.12.2018 under Sections 376/420 IPC at Police Station Women, Ferozepur, District Ferozepur against the petitioner. Police after completing investigation filed cancellation report dated 12.11.2022 before the trial Court. The matter was put up before Lok Adalat which rejected cancellation report. The petitioner approached DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.22 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-3073-2023 (O&M) -2Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada seeking divorce. The matter was amicably settled. Custody of the child was handed over to respondent No.4 and petitioner was subjected to extend support of $365 per month. 3.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to accept or reject cancellation report. The impugned order is bad in the eye of law on the ground of jurisdiction. 4.

Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert the factual and legal position, however, submits that Investigating Officer would again place the matter before Court of competent jurisdiction. 5.

Faced with this, learned counsel representing the petitioner agrees with the aforesaid arrangement.

6.

In the wake of statements of both sides, the impugned order is hereby set aside with liberty to Investigation Officer to proceed in accordance with law.

7.

Disposed of.

8.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 22.05.2026 Prince Chawla Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.22 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment