Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 22 September, 2016
244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-26590 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22nd September, 2016
Mahabir Singh Balmiki
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent(s)-State.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Kalandra under Section 182 IPC bearing No.1 PC/397/1 of 2013/20.09.2013 dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure P-2).
In this case, at initial stage, the petitioner had filed a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Panipat and after the investigation the complaint was found to be false and proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. were initiated.
It is not disputed that the petitioner had also filed a complaint on the same cause of action in which the accused were summoned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the Court had summoned the accused persons, proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. would be completely illegal because it would be for the Court to decide 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2016 03:20:45 ::: Criminal Misc.No.M-26590 of 2014 (O&M) -2- whether the complaint is false or not. He has relied upon the judgment passed in Shiv Kumar Grover and another versus State of Punjab 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 57 wherein this Court has held as follows:-
"An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 458, wherein it was ruled (paras 14 & 15) as under:-
"14. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has already filed a complaint in regard to the same incident and after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate has summoned the accused vide summoning order (Annexure P-2). That means, the subject matter of the case is sub-judiced and the trial Magistrate is seized of the matter, relatable to truth or otherwise of the version projected by the petitioner in this context. In that eventuality, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC are not legally maintainable.
15. An identical question arose before this Court in case Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 718. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that once the petitioner has filed a private complaint and the accused have been summoned, then it cannot be said that the information supplied by the petitioner was false. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of complaint and summoning order in respect of the same offence, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of the learned State Counsel 'stricto sensu'
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2016 03:20:46 ::: Criminal Misc.No.M-26590 of 2014 (O&M) -3- deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The observations in the aforesaid judgment "mutatis-mutandis" are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand."
In this view of the matter, I do not deem it appropriate to continue with the proceedings under Section 182 IPC. and consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the abovesaid kalandra (Annexure P-2) is quashed.
( AJAY TEWARI )
nd
22 September, 2016 JUDGE
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2016 03:20:46 :::