The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complaint in writing by the public servant administratively subordinate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC, as per Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the lack of authority of the SHO of the Police Station to file the complaint in this case.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner Baldev Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Calendra under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-1) filed by the SHO, Police Station Deeng in the Court of JMIC, Sirsa and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

2. In the aforesaid Calendra, it has been stated that Baldev Singh petitioner sent a complaint dated 17.2.2003 to Prime Minister of India against Naib Tehsildar Nathusari Chopta, Patwari Halwa Jodhkan, Bal Kishan Gir and Mahender Gir sons of Balwant Gir, Jhanda Singh and his two sons Satish Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar, Mahendergir Sarpanch of village Jodhkan and Balwant Singh son of Jai Karan with the allegations that Subhas Gir son of Balwant Gir resident of village Jodhkan was a person of unsound mind and his property was sold away at a throw away price by his brothers Mahender Gir and Balkishan Gir vide sale deed dated 7.5.2002 for a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- which was purchased by Jhanda Singh in the name of his sons Satish Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar. It was further alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid Naib Tehsildar and Patwari Halqa had taken huge amount for registration of the sale-deed. It was also alleged that the registration of the sale-deed was under valued to evade the payment of stamp duty. In the reply filed by the respondent, it has been averred that the aforesaid complaint was thoroughly investigated, statements of all the concerned persons were recorded. It has been stated that during investigation the allegations in the complaint were found to be false. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner was interested in purchasing the aforesaid land and when the same was not sold to him, he had moved the false complaint so as to harass and humiliate the vendees, revenue officers and others. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid Calendra was prepared and presented to the Court, which is pending consideration before the Court of JMIC, Sirsa.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the aforesaid Calendra has been submitted by the SHO of police Station and he was not competent to file the said Calendra. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had made a complaint to the Prime Minister of India under bona fide belief, intention and knowledge and even if the allegation made in the said complaint is found to be incorrect, no proceedings under Section 182 IPC can be initiated against the petitioner on the Calendra submitted by the SHO of the Police Station. The counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the SHO of the Police Station has no locus standi to file a complaint against the petitioner when the complaint was made to the Prime Minister. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab and another, 1992(2) RCR(Criminal) 13.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. In this case, the sole question for determination is whether SHO of the Police Station has the locus standi to file a complaint under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner when the alleged false complaint was made to the Prime Minister and not the SHO of the Police Station.

6. In an identical situation, this question came for consideration before this Court in Sardari Lals case (supra) wherein it has been held as under :-

"A bare reading of this provision (Section 195 Cr.P.C.) would show that the Court of competent jurisdiction has been authorised to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (these include the offence under Section 182 under which the instant complaint had been filed against the petitioner by respondent No. 2) only on the complaint in writing by the public servant whom he is administratively subordinate. Since the complaint, copy Annexure P-2, has been made to the Prime Minister and to the Inspector General of Police and the S