Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1046 (PNJ)

Baldev Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-09-28

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Baldev Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Calendra under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-1) filed by the SHO, Police Station Deeng in the Court of JMIC, Sirsa and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the aforesaid Calendra, it has been stated that Baldev Singh petitioner sent a complaint dated 17.2.2003 to Prime Minister of India against Naib Tehsildar Nathusari Chopta, Patwari Halwa Jodhkan, Bal Kishan Gir and Mahender Gir sons of Balwant Gir, Jhanda Singh and his two sons Satish Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar, Mahendergir Sarpanch of village Jodhkan and Balwant Singh son of Jai Karan with the allegations that Subhas Gir son of Balwant Gir resident of village Jodhkan was a person of unsound mind and his property was sold away at a throw away price by his brothers Mahender Gir and Balkishan Gir vide sale deed dated 7.5.2002 for a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- which was purchased by Jhanda Singh in the name of his sons Satish Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar. It was further alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid Naib Tehsildar and Patwari Halqa had taken huge amount for registration of the sale-deed. It was also alleged that the registration of the sale-deed was under valued to evade the payment of stamp duty. In the reply filed by the respondent, it has been averred that the aforesaid complaint was thoroughly investigated, statements of all the concerned persons were recorded. It has been stated that during investigation the allegations in the complaint were found to be false. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner was interested in purchasing the aforesaid land and when the same was not sold to him, he had moved the false complaint so as to harass and humiliate the vendees, revenue officers and others. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid Calendra was prepared and presented to the Court, which is pending consideration before the Court of JMIC, Sirsa. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the aforesaid Calendra has been submitted by the SHO of police Station and he was not competent to file the said Calendra. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid Calendra was prepared and presented to the Court, which is pending consideration before the Court of JMIC, Sirsa. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the aforesaid Calendra has been submitted by the SHO of police Station and he was not competent to file the said Calendra. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had made a complaint to the Prime Minister of India under bona fide belief, intention and knowledge and even if the allegation made in the said complaint is found to be incorrect, no proceedings under Section 182 IPC can be initiated against the petitioner on the Calendra submitted by the SHO of the Police Station. The counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the SHO of the Police Station has no locus standi to file a complaint against the petitioner when the complaint was made to the Prime Minister. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab and another, 1992(2) RCR(Criminal) 13. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In this case, the sole question for determination is whether SHO of the Police Station has the locus standi to file a complaint under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner when the alleged false complaint was made to the Prime Minister and not the SHO of the Police Station. 6. In an identical situation, this question came for consideration before this Court in Sardari Lals case (supra) wherein it has been held as under :- "A bare reading of this provision (Section 195 Cr.P.C.) would show that the Court of competent jurisdiction has been authorised to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (these include the offence under Section 182 under which the instant complaint had been filed against the petitioner by respondent No. 2) only on the complaint in writing by the public servant whom he is administratively subordinate. Since the complaint, copy Annexure P-2, has been made to the Prime Minister and to the Inspector General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, the complaint could be filed in the Court by the Prime Minister or by the Inspector General of Police or by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Since the complaint, copy Annexure P-2, has been made to the Prime Minister and to the Inspector General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, the complaint could be filed in the Court by the Prime Minister or by the Inspector General of Police or by the Senior Superintendent of Police. In case, however, the Inspector General of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police wanted to avoid the filing of the complaint either through the Home Secretary/Minister, Home Affairs, or the Director General of Police etc. to whom the Inspector General of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police could not be said to be subordinate. Surely, the complaint could not be filed by the Inspector of Police, respondent No. 2, who is subordinate to the Inspector General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police, as has been done in this case, in view of the clear mandate contained in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code which has been reproduced above. 6-A. It has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jarnail Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 540 : 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 719, that the complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police giving rise to the filing of a formal complaint under Section 182 of the Code could not be initiated by an officer subordinate to the rank of the Senior Superintendent of Police. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206, the Apex Court had held that the offence under Section 182 of the Code is complete when a person moves the public servant for action. Where a person reports to a Tehsildar to take action on averment of certain facts, believing that the Tehsildar would take some action upon it and the facts alleged in the report are found to be false, it is incumbent, if the prosecution is to be launched, that the complaint in writing should be made by the Tehsildar as the public servant concerned under Section 182, and not leave it to the police to put a charge-sheet. The trial under Section 182 of the Code without the Tehsildars complaint in writing is, therefore, without jurisdiction ab initio." 7. The trial under Section 182 of the Code without the Tehsildars complaint in writing is, therefore, without jurisdiction ab initio." 7. In this case, the complaint was made by the petitioner to the Prime Minister of India on certain allegations against Naib Tehsildar, Patwari Halqa etc. and on enquiry those allegations were found to be incorrect. It is also undisputed that the impugned Calendra was filed by this SHO of the Police Station. In view of the ratio of the above judgment, in such situation, the SHO of Police Station has no locus standi to file the Calendra under Section 182 IPC. No contrary judgment has been cited by the learned counsel for the State. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed and the impugned Calendra dated 7.3.2003 (Annexure P-1) filed by the SHO of the Police Station and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the said Calendra are quashed.