Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr. P. C. ) for quashing the Kalendra (Annexure P2) filed against the petitioner by Station House Officer, Police Station, Division No.4, jalandhar under Sec.182 of the Indian penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is Principal of J. S. Memorial Model School, Joginder Nagar, rama Mandi, Jalandhar Cantt. gave information to the Senior superintendent of Police, Jalandhar vide Annexure P1. Tt was alleged therein that a boy, who has been rusticated from the school, for committing some wrong deeds, was involved in giving threats of killing him on telephone for the last few days. Two other boys, namely Bittu and kala, who are police constables and claimed themselves to be the gunmen of some officer were also his associates. Due to their closeness with senior police officials, they committed wrong deeds by taking undue advantage and on 8th August, 2002 at 9.30 p. m. , they started throwing stones at his house and ran away in the darkness of night. Due to this act, the teachers and school children had become apprehensive and loss of studies had been caused. It was requested that the matter may be looked into and guilty be punished. It was also mentioned that the fact was earlier reported to the Police Post, Jogi Nangal Shama, but no satisfactory response was given to the complaint. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, jalandhar entrusted the inquiry into the complaint of the petitioner to Shri harinderjit Singh, Deputy Senior Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Jalandhar, who found that the sister of Head Constable karamjit Singh (daughter of maternal uncle of Karamjit Singh) had passed 10th class from J. S. Memorial School, Joginder Nagar, jalandhar Cantt. and other children of his maternal uncle were also studying there. When Karamjit Singh went to the school to get the certificate of his sister, Amarjit kaur, the Principal tried to avoid him by making false assurances and did not issue the certificate. On this account, some dispute arose between them and the Principal made false allegations against Karamjit singh and others. The ransacking of the house of the Principal and the allegations of threats was not established. 4. On this account, some dispute arose between them and the Principal made false allegations against Karamjit singh and others. The ransacking of the house of the Principal and the allegations of threats was not established. 4. On the basis of the inquiry, the kalendra under Sec.182 of the IPC was filed against the petitioner in the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for punishing him on account of giving false information to the police. 5. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has sought the quashing of the aforestated Kalendra by pleading that the information given by him to the police was correct. Ajit Singh had been rusticated from the school and he along with Karamjit Singh had come to the office of the Principal of the school and threatened him. On 8.8.2002 at about 9.30 p. m. , Karamjit Singh along with ajit Singh had attacked the house, thereby damaging it. 6. Shri Sajjan Singh Cheema, Deputy superintendent of Police, Special Branch, jalandhar has filed reply on behalf of the state of Punjab and has prayed for dismissal of the petition by pleading that during the inquiry, the information given by the petitioner was found false and proceedings under Sec.182 of the IPC have rightly been initiated against him. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the state and have perused the record. 8. The provisions of Sec.195 of the cr. P. C. are relevant for the purposes of disposal of this petition. The same read as under: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, 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 secs. 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, 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; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Secs. 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Sec.475 or Sec.476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit, the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In Clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "court", means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of Clause (b) of subsection (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decrees or sentences of such former court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such civil Court is situated: provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceedings in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. " A perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that a complaint under Sec.182 of the IPC can be initiated against the informant only by the officer to whom false information has been made and not by an authority to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the instant case, the petitioner had made an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar for taking action against Karamjit Singh and others, whereas the Kalendra has been filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station, division No.4, Jalandhar. There is nothing on the record to show as to whether the Senior Superintendent of police or his administratively superior authority had authorised Station House Officer, Police station, Division No.4, Jalandhar to file the kalendra against the petitioner in the Court except for the bald averment made in paragraph 9 of the reply. 9 In a judgment reported as Jarnail singh V/s. State of Punjab and Another a learned Single Judge of this Court held that where the false information was alleged to have been given to SSP through a complaint, the prosecution under Sec.182 of the IPC could not be initiated against the complainant by a Subordinate Officer. 10. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and Kalendra Annexure p 2 and all subsequent proceedings taken pursuant thereto are quashed. Petition allowed.