Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 July, 2009
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007
DECIDED ON :.
Manjit Kaur
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another.
Respondents.
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present:- Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Grewal, A.A.G.Punjab.
JORA SINGH,J.
Petitioner Manjit Kaur has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of Calendra under Section 182 I.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner dated 30.11.2004 ( Annexure P-4) and charge sheet dated 4.10.2005 ( Annexure P-5) and all the consequential proceedings arising there from.
Respondent No.2 SHO Rajwinder Singh was Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 2 nourishing grudge against the petitioner and on account of that, the husband of the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case registered with Police Station, Civil Line, Patiala whereas the respondent No.2 was posted SHO of Police Line, Patiala. On 30.8.2004 he along with the police party had raided the house of the petitioner to arrest her husband namely Kuldip Singh. At that time, Ranju Bala wife of Sanjeev Kumar was also present and in her presence respondent No.2 and Head Constable Rohi Ram had insulted the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had submitted complaints to I.G. Police, Patiala Zone, Patiala and the SSP Patiala against respondent No.2 and others. The matter was referred to the then ASP, City II to enquire, who interestingly got the matter enquired into through one SI Amanpal Singh posted in Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala and was subordinate to respondent No.2 against whom the petitioner had submitted complaint. One sided and partial inquiry was conducted by SI Aman Pal without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or the witnesses, inquiry report was submitted with the allegation that allegations levelled by the petitioner are false. Inquiry Officer further recommended for action after taking opinion of DA legal. Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 3
As per report of the DA legal, respondent No.2 prepared the Calendra under Section 182 I.P.C. and presented before the concerned Court. Learned trial Court without appreciating the factual aspect as well as legal position, issued notice/charge upon the petitioner to face trial. Application was moved for dropping proceedings by relying upon the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the judgments passed by this Court. Application of the petitioner was dismissed. Revision petition was filed and the same was also dismissed. Requested that Calendra under Section 182 I.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 and charge sheet dated 4.10.2005 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may kindly be quashed.
Upon notice State of Punjab filed reply by way of affidavit of Kesar Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-II, Patiala. That FIR No. 259 of 2003 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC was registered against Kuldip Singh, police party raided the house of the petitioner. Petitioner was not present in the house. Manjit Kaur was present in the house. Police party enquired from Manjit Kaur about her husband Kuldip Singh but she did not disclose anything regarding Kuldip Singh. Rather started quarreling with the police Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 4 party. Petitioner had misbehaved with the police party. SHO Rajwinder Singh brought this matter into the notice of the Senior Police Officials. Entry was made in the roznamcha dated 30.8.2004. To avoid the arrest of Kuldip Singh in FIR No. 259/2003 false complaint was sent against the official members of the raiding party. After enquiry, complaint was found to be false. Calendra under Section 182 IPC was presented for filing false complaints.
Respondent No.2 filed separate reply and contested the petition on the same allegations as levelled by respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that first complaint Annexure P-1 was sent to IGP. Patiala Zone, Patiala. Complaint is dated 31.8.2004 against respondent No.2. Second complaint was sent to SSP, Patiala Inquiry was held by SI of Police Station, Civil Line, Patiala. According to the story of the respondents, during inquiry, complaints Annexures P-1 and P-2 were found to be false. Inquiry was also held by DSP. C(II), Patiala but the Calendra under Section 182 I.P.C. was not submitted by IGP Patiala Range or SSP, Patiala.
Mr. P.S.Grewal. Assistant Advocate General, Punjab argued that FIR No. 259/2003 under Sections Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 5 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. was registered against Kuldeep Singh husband of the petitioner. To avoid arrest of Kuldeep Singh and pressurize the police party not to take action complaints Annexures P-1 and P-2 were sent to different authorities. But after inquiry complaints were found to be false. Calendra was rightly submitted by respondent No.2.
I have gone through the file and am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be reasonable one. Admittedly, FIR No. 259/2003 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. was registered against Kuldeep Singh. Police party had gone to apprehend Kuldeep Singh when petitioner had some altercation with the official of the police party. As per the petitioner, complaints were sent to IG Police, Patiala Sone, Patiala and SSP, Patiala. After inquiry, without registering FIR, respondent No.2 had no power to present Calendra.
In Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1999(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 10 it was held that complaint under Section 302 IPC sent to Superintendent of Police. FIR was not registered. SHO however making investigation and found that allegations were false. Proceedings under Section 182 I.P.C. lodged by SHO before Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 6 Magistrate. Held that SHO not competent to make complaint. Complaint could be filed by SP of Police to whom the alleged false complaint was sent.
In Babita Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516 it was held that FIR under Sections 323, 341, 506 I.P.C. was got registered but SHO found the allegations false and submitted cancellation report to Magistrate. SHO cannot initiate proceedings under Section 182 I.P.C. against the petitioner till Court expressed its opinion about the falsity of complaint.
In P.D. Lakhani and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 838 it was held that criminal complaint was sent to SSP and SHO found that complaint was false and filed a complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. before Magistrate against the complainant. Complaint was dismissed. Held that no complaint could be lodged by SHO. Under Section 195 Cr.P.C. complaint could be fliled either by SSP or his superior officer and not by inferior officer.
In the present case, Calendra under Section 182 I.P.C. was submitted then on 4.10.2005 charge was framed. Charge is reproduced as under:-
" That on or before 3.9.2004 you have filed written complaint before IGP, Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 7 Patiala Zone, Patiala, SSP, Patiala these found false in enquiry conducted by ASP City-II Patiala and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC and within my cognizance."
Application Annexure P-7 is the reply by the State and in para No.3 State alleged that the accused moved two applications i.e. one to SSP, Patiala and other to IGP, Patiala. The matter was enquired and application found false. Application to drop the proceedings was dismissed vide order Annexure P-8 dated 4.4.2007.
Against the order dated 4.4.2007, revision was preferred but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2007 (Annexure P-9). In the Calendra Annexure P- 4 dated 30.11.2004 respondent No.2 observed that during enquiry complaints were found to be false subsequently the enquiry was conducted by DSP, C-II, Patiala. No truth was found into the complaints filed.
All this shows that complaint Anneuxre P-1 was sent to IG, Patiala Range, Patiala and SSP, Patiala respectively. Inquiry was held by the SI. Allegations were found to be false. Inquiry was also held by ASP C- II, Patiala but the Calendra was presented by respondent No.2.
Crl.Misc. No. 41174-M of 2007 8
Aforesaid authorities are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
For the reasons mentioned, the impugned Calendra cannot be sustained and the same is ordered to be quashed.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Calendra (Annexure P-4) is accepted.
( JORA SINGH )
Anoop JUDGE