Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajnish Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 January, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM NO.M-1184 OF 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO.M- 1184 of 2011(O&M)
DECIDED ON: 17.01.2012
Rajnish Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ........Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J(ORAL) The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the Kalendra (Annexure P1) filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner Rajnish Kumar son of Raj Kumar, resident of Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur presented an application before Superintendent of Revenue & Resettlement Department, Punjab, Chandigarh with the allegations that Ram Balak Dass Chela Mehant Siya Ram, resident of Garhdiwala was trying to usurp his land. Raj Kumar, father of the petitioner, had also presented an application bearing No.1472 dated 22.11.2005 to Senior Superintendent of CRM NO.M-1184 OF 2011(O&M) 2 Police, Hoshiarpur with the similar allegations. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur marked the said application to Station House Officer, Police Station, Garhdiwala. After inquiry it was concluded by the police that the contents of the application were false. The above matter was taken up in the District Grievances Committee, Presided over by PWD(B&R) Ministr. Punjab on 01.04.2006, in which it was ordered that if the contents of the application were incorrect then action under Section 182 IPC may be initiated in accordance with law. The Senior Superintendent of Police Hoshiarpur, ordered that a complaint for the commission of offence punishable under Section 182 IPC be instituted against the petitioner. In compliance of the above, the Station House Officer, Police Station Garhdiwala, through Additional Public Prosecutor, presented the Kalendra before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on 24.01.2008 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Kalendra (Annexure P1) was presented against the petitioner on the ground that Raj Kumar, father of the petitioner, had presented an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, which was referred to Station House Officer, Hoshiarpur for inquiry vide order dated 22.11.2005. He further submits that no application was ever presented before the Station House Officer and hence, he was not competent to file the Kalendra. He further submits that the Kalendra was filed after the period of limitation. To elaborate his submissions, he submits that the Kalendra was presented before the CRM NO.M-1184 OF 2011(O&M) 3 Court on 24.01.2008. The application (Annexure P3) was presented on 22.11.2005. The President of the District Grievances Committee had directed to take action under Section 182 IPC on 01.04.2006. In pursuance to the order passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, the Station House Officer prepared the Kalendra on 25.08.2006 and it remained with him (Station House Officer) till 24.01.2008. He further submits that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under section 182 IPC is six months, therefore, by virtue of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the maximum period for filing the kalendra was one year.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that after inquiry, the contents of the application were found to be false and hence, the Station House Officer, Hoshiarpur has rightly presented the Kalendra for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
It is an admitted fact that petitioner Rajnish Kumar had presented the application before Superintendent Revenus and Resettlement Department, Punjab. Even if it is assumed that the contents of the said application were false, then also Kalendra for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC could be filed by the Superintendent, Revenue and Resettlement Department. Reference can be made to 2009(3) RCR(Crl.) 168 Dr. Sham Lal Thukral v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) Crimes 225 D.S.Rawat v. State of Punjab, 2010(1) RCR(Crl.) 515 Vipan Kumar Khurana v. Manjit CRM NO.M-1184 OF 2011(O&M) 4 Kaur and AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206(1) Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab. In Daulat Ram's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where a person reports to a Tehsildar to take action on averments 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 Tehsildar as the public servant concerned under Section 182 IPC and not leave it to the police to put a charge-sheet. The complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned. The trial under Section 182 IPC without the Tehsildar's complaint in writing, is therefore, without jurisdiction ab initio. This Court took the similar view in Dr. Sham Lal Thukral's case (supra), D.S.Rawat's case (supra) and Vipan Kumar Khurana's case (supra) that application presented to Senior Superintendent of Police, for registration of a criminal case against certain person, Station House Officer, made inquiry and found the complaint to be false. Station House Officer, presented the Kalendra against the person who presented the application, the said Kalendra was found to be without jurisdiction.
In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the above discussed authorities, Station House Officer, Police Station Gardhiwala, District Hoshiarpur was not competent to file the impugned Kalendra (Annexure P1).
Another aspect of the case is that it came to the notice of the Station House Officer, Police Station Gardhiwala, District Hoshiarpur on 25.08.2006 that the contents of the application CRM NO.M-1184 OF 2011(O&M) 5 presented by the petitioner were false. This fact is clear from the bare perusal of the Kalendra (Annexure P1), which was prepared on 25.08.2006 but the same was presented before the Court on 24.01.2008 i.e beyond the period of one year. Therefore, it was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To support the above view, the reference can be made to 1981 SCC (Crl.) 625 State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, 1993(2) RCR(Crl.) 633 Jagraj Singh v. State of Punjab and 2009(2) RCR (Crl.) 1 Gammi @ Gama v. State of Punjab and another. The essence of above authorities is that period of limitation for filing the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC is one year.
In view of the above settled prepositions of law, the Kalendra (Annexure P1) titled Rajnish Kumar v. State of Punjab, pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
17.01.2012 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) mamta JUDGE