The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for filing a complaint under Section 182 IPC and the authority entitled to file the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Kalandra under Section 182 IPC lodged against the petitioner vide DD No. 16 dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, in violation of procedure prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C., despite the fact that the complaint moved to the Superintendent of Police, has wrongly made the basis for filing Kalandra by the concerned SHO, overlooking the factum of previous inquiries and pending petitions for quashing of FIR lodged by complainant-Subhash Trehan; acquittal of the petitioner in false complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to filing of the petition are that petitioner-Inderjit Dhamija, is the authorized signatory of J.D. University Infra Limited as well as Dhamija & Company. The petitioner had plotted a site for residential purpose in its name JD Universal (Jaydee Green City Karnal). One Subhash Trehan, deposited Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- with Dhamija & Company (Builders) vide receipt No. 498/170 dated 18.01.2011; Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.11.2011 vide receipt No. 505/170 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.01.2011 vide receipt No. 520/70 to Dhamija & Company, for purchasing two plots measuring 10 marlas each in Jaydee Green City, Karnal. But the petitioner neither gave plots to the complainant nor returned his amount, rather filed false complaint against the complainant-Subhash Trehan, bearing No. 2993 CMISE, dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure P-2), 424P-111, dated 24.06.2016, 440P-111 dated 25.06.2016, in order to put pressure upon him and to grab his money. The investigation of the above mentioned complaint was conducted. After thorough investigation, it was concluded that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against complainant-Subhash Trehan were found to be false and frivolous and precious time of the police had been wasted by the petitioner. In view of the above said recommendation, impugned Kalandara under Section 182 IPC was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal, vide DD No. 16 dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that the complaint/representation dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, on inquiry by the police, was found to be false. The Kalandra/complainant under Section 182 IPC was lodged against the petitioner on 14.09.2019, whereas the said inquiry was concluded on 18.05.2016, after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of 1 year, hence, the same is barred by period of limitation. He further contends that the complaint/representation Annexure P-2 of the petitioner was addressed to S.S.P., Karnal whereas the present Kalandra has been filed against the petitioner by the SHO concerned. According to Section 195 Cr.P.C, complaint/Kalandra could either be filed by the SSP or his superior officer. The complaint/Kalandra filed by the SHO is liable to be quashed, being an abuse of the process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in CRM-M-50176-2018, Shikha Kondal vs. State of Punjab, decided on 06.02.2020 and Amir Chand vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 18.12.2019.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had given false information to the Police and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 182 of the IPC. Therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed.

5. I have learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.

6. Before adverting to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to first refer to the statutory provisions.

7. Section 182 of the IPC, which prescribes the punishment