Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Krishan Chander Singh - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-17449 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana.
None for the applicant - complainant.

The commencement of the period of limitation for filing the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC starts from the date of preparation of the cancellation report, as per the legal provisions of Sections 468 & 469 of the CrPC.

Headnote:
Section 182 IPC - Quashing of Kalendra under Section 182 of the IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 182 IPC, Sections 468 & 469 CrPC - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 182 IPC and Sections 468 & 469 of the CrPC, emphasizing the commencement of the period of limitation for filing the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC from the date of preparation of the cancellation report.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the Kalendra under Section 182 of the IPC and summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, along with subsequent proceedings. The petitioner alleged interference in his possession of land and false allegations against him.
Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the petition as the Kalendra and summoning order were filed much beyond the limitation period, quashing them and all subsequent proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could take cognizance for the offence under Section 182 IPC or if it was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the limitation for filing the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC starts running from the date of preparation of the cancellation report, not from the acceptance of the report by the court or the decision on the protest petition.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Kalendra and summoning order, along with subsequent proceedings, were quashed.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, prayer is made by the petitioner to quash Kalendra under Section 182 of the IPC dated 05.09.2010 (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure P2) passed by ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambala along with all subsequent proceedings.

2. (i) It is contended by ld. counsel that petitioner had purchased 11 acres 15 marlas of land situated in Village Kambas from his father-in-law Kanwar Raja Ram Singh in the year 1970, though the sale deed was got registered in the name of his wife Pratha Devi. Mutation was duly sanctioned in this regard and ever-since then, the Girdawari entries are in the name of Pratha Devi. Petitioner and his wife Pratha Devi got a Will registered on 04.04.1987 regarding their immovable properties to be inherited by the either or survivor. On the death of Pratha Devi in 2001, the land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioner vide mutation Annexure P3. After the death of Kanwar Raja Ram Singh, the father-in-law of the petitioner, in December 2004, Prithvi Singh Chauhan, his brother-in-law, started interfering in his possession.

(ii) As per ld. counsel, petitioner had collected building material in his land and had also affixed the gate. On 11.01.2005, Prithvi Singh Chauhan along with various others reached the spot, forcibly entered therein and took away all the building material like bricks, slabs, cement bags etc. At that time, said Prithvi Singh was holding a revolver and other persons were armed with lathis and dandas etc. Petitioner lodged FIR No.6 dated 12.01.2005 at Police Station Barara, District Ambala under Sections 148/149/447/427/382/506 IPC in this regard.

(iii) As Prithvi Singh Chauhan, brother-in-law of the petitioner was threatening the petitioner so as to grab the land, so petitioner filed Civil Suit in which application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was decided in his favour vide order dated 16.03.2005 (Annexure P4), which order was upheld up to this High Court.

(iv) It is alleged that under the influence of Prithvi Singh Chauhan, police filed a cancellation report in respect of the FIR No.6 lodged by the petitioner on 24.04.2005. Petitioner filed protest petition, on which the Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused Prithvi Singh Chauhan etc. However, CRM-M-925-2009 filed by Prithvi Singh Chauhan was allowed by this High Court on 25.07.2010, whereby the protest petition and the summoning order were set aside. The Special Leave Petition bearing No.9316 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 10.01.2011 by Hon’ble Supreme Court (Annexure P8).

(v) Ld. counsel contends that thereafter under the influence of Prithvi Singh Chauhan, Amar Singh, SHO, Police Station, Barara filed Kalendra (Annexure P1) on 05.09.2010 against the petitioner in the Court of ld. JMIC, Ambala, wherein summoning order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure P2) has been passed. Ld. counsel contends that as the cancellation report had been filed in the Court of Ld. JMIC, Ambala on 24.04.2005, therefore, the Kalendra having been filed in the Court on 05.09.2010 i.e., after more than 5 years, is clearly barred by time as per the provisions of Section 468 to be read with Section 469 CrPC.

(vi) Ld. counsel has referred to Harbhajan Singh Bajwa Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Patiala and another, 2000 (3) RCR (Criminal) 94 and Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) RCR 666 to support his contention.

With all these submissions, prayer is made for quashing the Kalendra, impugned summoning order and the subsequent proceedings.

3. As per the reply filed by Sh. Kushal Singh, DSP, Barara, on behalf of the respondent/State, the litigation was between petitioner and Prithvi Singh Chauhan and his family and that Kalendra under Section 182 of the IPC (Annexure P1) has been filed against the petitioner in accordance with law because the contents of FIR got registered by the petitioner was found to be f