The court clarified the competency of the kalendra under Section 182 IPC, the maintainability of revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the requirements of S.195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of kalendra filed against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-1) and order dated 9.6.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda summoning the petitioner to face trial in kalendra filed under Section 182 IPC and the order dated 11.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda dismissing the revision against the summoning order as not maintainable.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint with the SSP, Bathinda with the request for registration of a criminal case against Kartar Singh Jaura for committing fraud by getting sale deed of 324 square yards registered whereas the actual ownership of the vendor was merely 194 square yards. On receipt of the application, the same was marked for inquiry. On inquiry, the caseset up by the petitioner was found to be false. However, before enquiring, no FIR was registered. The complaint made by the petitioner having been found to be false, opinion was sought from Deputy District Attorney (Legal), who recommended for initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC which was approved by the SSP, Bathinda on 5.2.2003 and it was on the basis thereof, the impugned kalendra was presented against the petitioner under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Bathinda. On presentation of kalendra vide order dated 9.6.2004, the petitioner was summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Aggrieved against the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda who vide order dated 11.3.2006 dismissed the same as not maintainable, inter alia holding that the revision against the summoning order was not maintainable, the same being interlocutory in nature. Only a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised various submissions that the impugned kalendra itself was incompetent for the reason that undisputedly the complaint was filed by the petitioner to the SSP, Bathinda whereas the kalendra was presented before the Court under the signatures of SHO, Police Station Bathinda. The filing of kalendra under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Bathinda when the complaint was made to the SSP, Bathinda does not fulfil the. requirements of law. Presentation of kalendra by the police without holding investigation after registration of FIR is incompetent as in the present case the only inquiry was made by the police on a complaint by the petitioner. Finally, the submission was that the learned Court below was totally wrong in holding that the revision before it was not competent as the summoning order was interlocutory in nature, whereas summoning order cannot be termed as interlocutory as the quashing thereof will have the result of terminating the proceedings in its entirety. Reliance has placed upon a judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others V/s. Uttam and Another, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 134 : (1999 Cri LJ 1620).

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though SSP, Bathinda had not signed the kalendra but it was attested by him and such a defect cannot be held to be fatal. As regards the maintainability of revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he did not dispute the proposition of law that the revision before the Sessions Judge against the summoning order was maintainable as the same cannot be held to be interlocutory in nature.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. As far as the issue regarding maintainability of revision is concerned, the same has been gone into by this Court in Dr. Gurpreet Kaur and another V/s. State of Punjab and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 285 : (2008 Cri LJ (NOC) 743) and it was opined that a summoning order cannot be held to be interlocutory in nature as i