' Through this petition, the order dated 02.03.2013, passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Mailsi is called in question whereby he accepted cancellation report arising out of FIR No, 440/2012 dated 14.12.2012 offence u/S. 457 PPC P.S. Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, that since no reasoning for agreeing with the cancellation report are mentioned in the impugned order, hence this is a non-speaking order and that while passing the impugned order. neither the petitioner was summoned nor was given an opportunity of hearing, hence the principle of natural justice 'audi altrum partum' is violated.
3. I have perused the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Law Officer.
4.The perusal of the impugned order shows that no legally justifiable reason, whatsoever, is assigned by the learned Magistrate therein. Such an order is in sharp contrast with the mandate of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. The learned Magistrate was required to pass a speaking order while mentioning the reasons, whereby he was convinced that the case is fit for the cancellation of FIR. The impugned order was passed to the prejudice of the complainant, hence, the learned Magistrate should have at least issued a notice to the complainant, so as to give him an opportunity to defend the case. Such an order, by no stretch of interpretation can be termed as a legal order, hence is liable to beset-aside.
5.The learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order within 15-days of the receipt of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, While passing fresh order he will not be influenced by anything discussed above.
6.Disposed of.