JUDGMENT :

Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Kalandra (Annexure P-1) filed vide Rapat No.33 dated 05.09.2017, summoning order (Annexure P-3) dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar and order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-20) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against summoning order Annexure P-3 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner lodged complaint Annexure P-11 dated 24.06.2014 with the Senior Superintendent of Police, SBS Nagar (in short SSP, SBS Nagar') against Harshvardhan and Vijay Gautam and others wherein he alleged that aforesaid persons fabricated one agreement to sell dated 26.03.2011 (Annexure P-12) purported to be executed by Ravi Gautam (since deceased) in favour of Harshvardhan son of Vijay Gautam. As the police failed to take any action on the basis of complaint Annexure P-11, the petitioner kept on sending reminders Annexure P-43 to Annexure P-52. As per police, the matter was inquired into and the allegations made in the complaint were found to be false. Resultantly, Kalandra (Annexure P-1) was presented by Inspector/SHO Police Station City Nawashahar coupled with written complaint Annexure P-2 made by SSP, SBS Nagar, under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner before the Court concerned, which entertained the same and passed summoning order (Annexure P-3) dated 05.09.2017.

3. The petitioner filed revision petition to challenge the aforesaid proceedings. However, the revisional Court dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-20).

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge Kalandra Annexure P-1, summoning order Annexure P-3 and the order passed by revisional Court dated 07.01.2023 Annexure P-20.

5. In response to notice of motion, the present petition has been contested by both the respondents. Short reply by way of affidavit of Ranjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Nawashahar, SBS Nagar, filed on behalf of respondents was placed on record.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that the complaint Annexure P-11 was addressed to SSP, SBS Nagar while Kalandra Annexure P-1 was presented by SHO of Police Station City Nawashahar. He has further submitted that as per provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C, Kalandra could have been filed in the Court either by SSP, SBS Nagar to whom the complaint was preferred or his superior officer. It has been further submitted that SSP, SBS Nagar was having no authority to delegate the aforesaid power under Section 195 Cr.P.C to his junior official. It has been further contended that thus, the subsequent complaint Annexure P-2 lodged by SSP, SBS Nagar is of no consequence. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.D. Lakhani and another Vs. State of Punjab and another 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 838.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that police did not properly inquired into the matter regarding fakeness of agreement to sell dated 26.03.2011. The report of hand writing expert which was relied upon by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the police. During inquiry, police officials also failed to take opinion of any other hand writing expert to verify the facts of complaint Annexure P-11. Thus, no offence under Section 182 IPC is made out against the petitioner.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as police failed to take any action against Harshvardhan and others, on the basis of complaint Annexure P-11, the complainant approached the area Magistrate concerned by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C Annexure P-14, wherein the proceedings were stayed by this Court. The counsel for the petitioner has further