Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 February, 2015
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 2015.02.06 13:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-29855 of 2010
Date of Decision: 03.02.2015
Zile Singh
---Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
---Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr.Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G.Haryana
for the respondent-State
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
Through the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C."), the petitioner prays for quashing of calendra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and proceedings emanating therefrom.
The sole submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that calendra proceedings initiated at the instance of Sub Inspector/Station House Officer in respect of a complaint allegedly made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police which is statedly found to be false are not sustainable as proceedings under Section 182 IPC can be initiated only by the authority to whom the complaint has been made which is the basis of proceedings under Section 182 IPC. In support of his contention, he has CRM-M-29855 of 2010 -2- relied upon judgments of this Court Randhir vs. State of Haryana and others 2003(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 651, Dr. Sham Lal Thukral vs. State of Punjab 2009(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 168, Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 418, Vipan Kumar Khurana vs. Manjit Kaur 2010(1)R.C.R.(Criminal) 515 and D.S.Rawat vs. State of Punjab 2007(2)R.C.R.(Criminal) 199.
Counsel representing the State of Haryana is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner either on factual or legal basis.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. In view of provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court of competent jurisdiction is authorized to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC only on the complaint filed by a public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The plea of the petitioner that as the complaint was filed to the Director General of Police, Haryana he alone was competent to file the complaint in writing or somebody else to whom the Director General of Police is subordinate, thus, the Sub Inspector/Station House Officer is not competent public servant who could file the complaint or initiate calendra proceedings in view of provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C is legally tenable and merits acceptance.
No other point has been raised.
CRM-M-29855 of 2010 -3-For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The calendra under Section 182 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed. However, this order would not be a bar for the competent officer to initiate proceedings, in accordance with law.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE 03.02.2015 PARAMJIT