The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 IPC during the pendency of his complaint on the same facts and allegations as mentioned in the FIR would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

T.P.S.Mann, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the Calendra dated 8.5.2005 under Section 182 IPC initiated against him by Station House Officer, Police Station Division No 3, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

2. It is stated in the petition that on a written complaint submitted by the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana against Ravel Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh, an order was passed by the said Court on 7.4.1999 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the SHO Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana to register a case by treating the complaint as an FIR and to investigate the matter. In pursuance thereof, FIR No. 24 dated 8.4.1999 was registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana under Section 420 IPC, Sections 78, 79 and 81 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 . However, on the basis of an absolutely baised and defective investigation, the police prepared a cancellation report dated 23.5.1999 and after obtaining final approval from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, it was submitted before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Vide order dated 20.1.2005, though the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the cancellation report but gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint on the same facts. Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint (Annexure P-3) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana. In the meantime, Ravel Singh, who was named as an accused in the FIR as well as in complaint (Annexure P-3), moved this Court for issuance of directions to the official respondents to take appropriate action under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, which petition was disposed of on 21.7.2003 by directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to take appropriate legal action. On 8.5.2005, SHO Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana filed the impugned calendra under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner, wherein he has now been summoned.

3. It was been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on the same facts and allegations on which the FIR was registered and the said complaint is now pending for recording of preliminary evidence. Therefore, the complaint under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner cannot proceed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner knowingly gave false information to a public servant and therefore, he was required to be proceeded against under Section 182 IPC. However, it was not denied that a criminal complaint (Annexure P-3) has already been filed by the petitioner on the same and similar allegations as were there in the earlier FIR registered at his instance.

5. There appears to be force and substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Though, the police had investigated the FIR registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner and found those allegations to be false, yet the petitioner has thereafter filed a fresh complaint Annexure P-3 and the said complaint is still pending and fixed for recording of preliminary evidence.

6. In Banta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR(Criminal) 133, the first information report lodged by the petitioner was found to be false during investigation and he was prosecuted for an offence under Section 182 IPC. The petitioner filed a complaint on the same facts and allegations on which he had made a statement before the police. The learned Magistrate had summoned the accused for various offences. It was held that the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 IPC during the pendency of the complaint was evidently an abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings were quashed.

7. In State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355, it was held that onc