2024 Supreme(P&H) 731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Sajjan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-19718 of 2022
Decided On : 20-03-2024
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana with ASI Raj Singh.
A Kalandra under Section 182 IPC cannot be initiated by an inferior officer; it must be filed by the concerned public servant or a superior officer as mandated by Section 195 of the Code.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 182 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 195 - Quashing of Kalandra initiated by SHO for false complaint - Kalandra cannot be maintained as it was not filed by the appropriate public servant, violating Section 195 - The complaint must be made by the concerned public servant or their superior. (Paras 4, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that a complaint under Section 182 IPC must be initiated by the public servant concerned or their superior, not by an inferior officer. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Kalandra filed by the SHO, arguing it was invalid as the original complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, not the SHO. The respondent did not dispute this fact but defended the Kalandra based on the alleged falsity of the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The Kalandra initiated against the petitioner for an offence under Section 182 IPC was quashed due to non-compliance with Section 195 of the Code, as it was not filed by the appropriate authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Kalandra could be maintained by the SHO when the original complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Kalandra could not be maintained as it was filed by an inferior officer, contrary to the provisions of Section 195, which mandates that only the concerned public servant or their superior can file such a complaint.
Result: Kalandra quashed.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Kalandra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-6).
2. While assailing the Kalandra, counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint was in fact presented to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani whereas the Kalandra has been presented by SHO concerned. Reliance is being placed upon the provisions as contained under Section 195 of the Code to submit that the Kalandra could have been presented either by the public servant concerned or the authority/officer superior to him. In the present case, the concerned public servant is Superintendent of Police to whom the complaint was presented. SHO being neither the concerned public servant nor superior to him Kalandra cannot survive.
3. The said fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondent. However, the action initiating Kalandra is being defended on the ground that the allegations levelled in the complaint at the behest of the petitioner were found to be false.
4. Having heard rival contentions of the parties the question that arises for consideration of this Court is that: 'when the principal FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made to Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani whether presentation of Kalandra qua offence punishable under Section 182 IPC on the ground that the said complaint was false can be maintained by Station House Officer in the light of provisions as contained under Section 195 of the Code?'.
5. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by counsel for the parties it will be apposite to peruse Section 195 of the Code which reads as under:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance -
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.]
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint :
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document