Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is totally non-speaking as the Court did not give reasons as to why the complainant was not satisfied.

Learned State counsel submitted that the Police had already prepared the cancellation report in favour of the petitioner after due investigation of the case.

The Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The complainant being an interested party would obviously not be satisfied with the cancellation report. Recital in the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 that the complainant was not satisfied, in my considered view cannot be the sole ground to discard the cancellation report as the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not elaborated the reasons of dissatisfaction of the complainant except to allege that the Police did not consider the material aspects of inquiry report dated 27.03.2018 conducted by the Additional Director General of Police (Jails) Punjab, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, at this stage without forming any opinion on merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to direct the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha to revisit the issue and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.