Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1253 (PNJ)

Sadhu Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-20

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Sadhu Singh petitioner, in the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code), is seeking the quashing of the Calendera filed by the police under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC) (Annexure P-7) on the ground that filing of the cancellation report, by the police, of an FIR lodged by the petitioner, does not mean that the petitioner had lodged the false report. 2. In the present case, petitioner lodged an FIR No. 38 dated 1.6.1997 under Sections 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC against certain persons. After investigation in the said FIR, on 22.8.1997, the police filed cancellation report. On filing the said report, the police filed Calendera (Annexure P-7) against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC for lodging false report. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Section 190(1) of the Code on 27.3.1999 for taking cognizance against the accused for the alleged offence and submitted that the cancellation report submitted by the police is wrong as no proper investigation was conducted by them. The said application of the petitioner was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide his order dated 16.5.2001 while holding that there are sufficient grounds to summon all the accused and the cancellation report submitted by the police is not valid. The operative part of the said order is re-produced as under : "After recording statement of complainant before the court against this cancellation report out the basis of these reports the case ultimately was submitted back for re-investigation vide order dated 3.6.2000 passed by the present Court. After re-investigation this file was sent back with same report in consequence to that complainant addressed consideration through his private counsel. Ld. APP has also assisted the Court. File has also been perused. As per averments in the FIR and also as per statements of witnesses Dalwinder Singh and Paramjit Singh U/s 161 Cr.P.C. there is specific ground made out against the accused to be summoned to face trial in this case as despite repeated investigations police has failed to reach to a conclusion that an offence worth challenging these accused has been committed by them. Aggrieved by this finding complainant has submitted arguments which have duly been considered by me at this stage. MLRs were procured by investigating agency during the investigation stage. Aggrieved by this finding complainant has submitted arguments which have duly been considered by me at this stage. MLRs were procured by investigating agency during the investigation stage. As per the reports in question no offence u/s 452 IPC has been shown occurred at the spot as the property in question belongs to case as per letter sent by Asst. Registrar, Cooperative Societies to higher police officials, which are on the file, showing that the property in dispute was on tenancy with Swaranjit Kaur wife of complainant Sadhu Singh. It cannot be held at this stage whether property was under the occupation of Cooperative Society or was with Swaranjit Kaur through her husband. Similar are my views with regard to provisions u/s 148/149 IPC. Accused have been attributed with carrying weapons of offence like rods etc. They were numbering more than five. Police twice has reached to conclusion that no offence worth challenging has been committed by accused but in view of specific averments of the complainant and witnesses Dalwinder Singh and Paramjit Singh on the file given in their respective statements and also in the FIR on the file there are sufficient grounds to summons all these accused Gurmail Singh, Santokh Singh, Nanak Chand, Ranjit Singh, Darbara Singh, Jasbir Singh and Niranjan Singh to face trial in this case." 3. Since the aforesaid order was passed during the pendency of the present petition, counsel for the petitioner placed on record its certified copy by way of miscellaneous application. Now the trial court is proceeding with the case against the accused. 4. In view of the position, explained above, the Calendera (Annexure P-7) filed by the police under Section 182 IPC has to be quashed because it cannot be said that the petitioner has lodged false FIR. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed and the Calendera (Annexure P-7) filed by the police against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC is hereby quashed.