Once the accused have been summoned based on a private complaint, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC cannot be permitted to continue.

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.

Tersely, the relevant facts & material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of complaint of petitioner Shiv Kumar Grover, a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.311 dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of certain witnesses, came to the conclusion that the information supplied by the petitioner in the indicated FIR was false. Thereafter, the concerned SHO prepared the Calendar (Annexure P2) to prosecute the petitioner and witness Navneet Aggarwal for the commission of offence punishable under Section 182 IPC.

2. At the same time, aggrieved by the conduct of the investigating agency, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3), pertaining to the same very incident, under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 397, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, in which, the accused were summoned to face the trial for the indicated offences by the Magistrate, by virtue of summoning order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P4).

3. Petitioner Shiv Kumar Grover and his witness Navneet Aggarwal, did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution u/s 182 IPC against them and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned Calendar (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that once the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the complaint (Annexure P3) and summoned the accused, by way of summoning order (Annexure P4), then, the initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC are arbitrary, illegal and cannot proceed. They have also taken the objection of cognizance of the Calendar, in view of bar under Section 195 Cr.PC. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned Calendar (Annexure P2) in the manner depicted here-in-above.

4. The respondent-State has refuted the prayer and filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that the respondent has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned Calendar (Annexure P2). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

6. As is evident from the record that, petitioner Shiv Kumar Grover has already filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3), with regard to the same very incident, subject matter of FIR (Annexure P1). Taking cognizance of the complaint and preliminary evidence, the Magistrate has summoned the accused to face the trial for the pointed offences, by means of summoning order (Annexure P4). Once the Magistrate is seized of the subject matter of the FIR in the complaint, then, to me, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC is not only illegal but without jurisdiction as well. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.

7. 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 ha