Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 985 (PNJ)

Mehar Singh v. State of Haryana

2004-08-31

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Petitioner Mehar Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the Calendra dated 14.11.2000, Annexure P-2 filed by the police against the petitioner under Section 182 Indian Penal Code. 2. In this case, on the complaint made by the petitioner, FIR No. 116 dated 30.7.2000 was registered against the accused Nathi Ram under Section 307 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Ladwa. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the accused Nathi Ram fired a gun shot on the petitioner from a pistol on 29.7.2000 when the petitioner was standing in front of the shop after laying roof of lintel on his shop. During the investigation, the police found the said FIR to be false and thereupon recommended for cancellation of the same and also for initiation of proceedings under Section 182 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation made by the police, he filed a private complaint in regard to the aforesaid occurrence. In the said complaint the accused Nathi Ram was summoned. However, in the meanwhile, the police filed a calendra against the petitioner for his prosecution under Section 182 Indian Penal Code for registration of a false case. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant petition. 4. During the pendency of this petition, the Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra finally decided the complaint filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 10.4.2004. A copy of the said judgment has been placed on record by the petitioner. In this judgment the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused from the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt, no finding has been recorded that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false. As such, the calendra submitted by the police against him under Section 182 Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. Therefore, the proceedings initiated on the basis of the said calendra would amount to abuse of the process of the law. As such, the calendra submitted by the police against him under Section 182 Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. Therefore, the proceedings initiated on the basis of the said calendra would amount to abuse of the process of the law. Learned counsel further submitted that once the complaint of the petitioner was entertained by the trial Court and the accused was also summoned to face the trial under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, in that event, the proceedings initiated by the police under Section 182 Indian Penal Code for lodging a false FIR are not sustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court in Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab, RCR(Crl.) 1997(2) 780 (P&H) and Banta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 133 (P&H). 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records of the case, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. After submission of cancellation report by the police, the petitioner filed a private complaint against the accused under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. In the said complaint, the accused was summoned and was tried. The petitioner also led evidence in the said complaint, though, subsequently, the accused has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. In the order, while acquitting the accused, it has not been held that the allegations levelled by the petitioner were false. The accused has been acquitted because the petitioner could not prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. In such situation, initiation of proceedings against the complainant-petitioner on the basis of the impugned calendra under Section 182 Indian Penal Code are not justified. I am of the opinion that the impugned Calendra under Section 182 Indian Penal Code could only be filed if the allegations levelled by the petitioner had been proved to be false. But in a case where complaint filed by the complainant is entertained on the same allegations and accused is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, it cannot be said that allegations levelled by the complainant are proved to be false. 7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned calendra is hereby quashed. Petition allowed.