Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1258 (PNJ)

Randhir v. State Of Haryana

2003-09-09

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
Judgment 1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr. P.C.) impugns the orders dated 4-4-2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu and 24-1-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. A direction has also been sought to respondent No. 3 to file the challan against respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, IPC). The principal ground for dismissal of the revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out in the impugned order is that complaint (Calendra) under Section 182, IPC should have been filed by the Superintendent of Police and not by the Station House Officer because the complaint was made by Bhola Ram to the Superintendent of Police. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Malkiat Singh V/s. State of Haryana, (1999) 1 Cri CJ 702. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2 is alleged to have filed a false complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani respondent No. 3 levelling allegations of forgery with a request to register a case against the petitioner under Sections 468/467/471/420, IPC. Respondent No. 3 forwarded the application of Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Loharu i.e. respondent No. 4 who registered FIR No. 131 dated 1-10-1997 under Sections 468/ 467/471/420, IPC against the petitioner. However, on investigation the complaint filed by Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2 was found to be false. For filing a false complaint the Station House Officer respondent No. 4 filed a complaint (Calendera) under Section 182, IPC against respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram was summoned by SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu. He raised an objection that the complaint filed by respondent No. 4-Station House Officer suffers from inherent defect as he had filed a complaint for taking action under Sections 468/467/471/420, IPC before the Superintendent of Police i.e. respondent No. 3 and, therefore, he alone was competent to file the complaint (Calendera) under Section 182, IPC. The Judicial Magistrate accepted the plea and discharged Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who also affirmed the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate. Placing reliance on Section 195, Cr. The Judicial Magistrate accepted the plea and discharged Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who also affirmed the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate. Placing reliance on Section 195, Cr. P.C. and in the cases of Harbans Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1991) 3 Rec Cri R 113; Malkiat Singh (supra) and Kishan Swaroop V/s. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, (1998) 3 Rec Cri R 137 : (1998 Cri LJ 1409), the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed as under : "A careful reading of Malkiat Singhs case (1999 (1) Cri CJ 702) (supra) shows that aforesaid relevant provisions under Section 195(1), IPC (sic ? Cr. P.C.) have been reiterated. Furthermore observations made in Harbans Singhs case (1991 (3) Rec Cri R 113) (supra) have been affirmed. Therefore, it cannot be construed that in Malkiat Singhs case (supra) our Honble High Court declared that a complaint made to Senior Superintendent of Police and being got investigated by concerned S.H.O. on turning false could make S.H.O. competent to move a complaint in a form of Calendera under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant. Calendera under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code could either be made by Superintendent of Police to whom complaint was originally made or any officer superior to him for presentation of Calendera under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant in the Court. This revision petition has been preferred by Randhir son of Duni Chand named as accused in the complaint of Bhoma Ram, respondent No. 2 to the Superintendent of Police. Said Randhir was not a party in the proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code of S.H.O. of Police Station, Loharu which resulted into impugned order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Loharu. As per observations held in Kishan Swaroops case (1998 Cri LJ 1409) (supra) Randhir Singh, petitioner could not file the present revision petition and as such it is held that present revision petition is not maintainable on his behalf." 3. Mr. Anil Ghanghas, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram should not be permitted to escape the liability of making a false report on technical ground that the complaint has not been filed by the Superintendent of Police. Mr. Anil Ghanghas, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram should not be permitted to escape the liability of making a false report on technical ground that the complaint has not been filed by the Superintendent of Police. According to the learned counsel, the defect in the filing of complaint can be cured by issuing directions to the Superintendent of Police to file a complaint (Calendera) against respondent No. 2 under S. 182, I.P.C. 4. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be dismissed because there is a prohibition engrafted by S. 195, Cr. P.C. that the Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188, I.P.C. unless a complaint in writing is made by a public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Section 195(l)(a), Cr. P.C. reads as under : "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate." 5. The question whether the Superintendent of Police is competent to file complaint or it could be filed even by a person subordinate to him has been subject-matter of consideration in the cases of Harbans Singh (1991 (3) Rec Cri R 113) (supra); Davinder Singh Kapoor V/s. State of Punjab (1991 2 LR 194) and Malkiat Singh (1999 (1) Cri LJ 702) (supra). It has been held in all the aforementioned judgments that the complaint is required to be filed by the publie servant concerned i.e. by the Superintendent of Police to whom flse grievance is alleged to have been made by the accused. In those cases also, it was the Station House Officer who had filed the complaint whereas the false grievance is alleged to have been made to the Superintendent of Police, Therefore, there is no room to accept the prayer made by the petitioner. In those cases also, it was the Station House Officer who had filed the complaint whereas the false grievance is alleged to have been made to the Superintendent of Police, Therefore, there is no room to accept the prayer made by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the public officer is an aggrieved party who should have filed an appeal or revision. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.