JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash the impugned Kalendra/complaint (Annexure P-4) under Section 182 of IPC filed in case titled as ‘State Vs Asma’ in FIR No.250 dated 19.10.2016 under Sections 506 IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 16.10.2016, the petitioner along with her minor daughter, namely, Arvana had gone to the forest area to take fodder for the cattle and while they were returning home, accused, namely Afroj, Haris, Jahul, Saddam and Hasim started chasing them and tortured them. They committed obscene acts and pushed the petitioner and she fell down. Even they had outraged the modesty of the petitioner and her daughter. Consequently one FIR No. 250 dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) as noted above was ordered to be registered against them.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that even the statements of both the victims were recorded by the police, but no steps were taken to arrest the accused in the present case. Even, Khurshid son of Nasruddin appeared as a witness and made his statement in favour of the petitioner, still the police prepared a cancellation report (Annexure P-3) on 2.11.2016. After preparation of the cancellation report, the police presented a Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner on 5.9.2018. Even the Kalandra was prepared by SHO, Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in the present case, FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the basis of the complaint moved to SHO Police Station (Woman), Nuh, whereas the impugned Kalandra (Annexure P-4) was prepared and presented by SHO Police Station, Ferozepur Jhirka and such Kalandra was not maintainable before the court. Apart from that, the maximum sentence provided under the provisions of Section 182 IPC was six months and in view of provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C, no court was competent to take cognizance after a period of one year of preparation of cancellation report.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the submissions, however he could not controvert the factual submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file minutely.

7. This Court in the matter of Babita Vs State of Punjab and another 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 516 held as follows:-

8. As far as second contention of counsel for the petitioner regarding the kalendra being incompetent on the ground that the same has been filed under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Model Town, Ludhiana whereas the complaint was made to SSP, Ludhiana is concerned, the issue has been considered in detail by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 60096-M of 2004 (Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab) decided on 6.2.2008, wherein relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206, it has been opined that if the prosecution is to be launched under Section 182 Indian Penal Code, the complaint in writing should be made by the public servant concerned and not by any other person. Paras 3 and 4 of the judgment can be referred for reference which read as under :-

"3. The only question in this case is whether a complaint in writing as required by Section 195 had been presented by the public servant concerned. The public servant who was moved by the appellant was undoubtedly the Tehsildar. Whether the appellant wanted the Tehsildar to take action or not, the fact remains that he moved the Tehsildar on what is stated to be a false averment of facts. He had charged Hans Raj and Kans Raj with offences under the Penal Code and he had moved his superior officer for action even though he might have stated in the letter that it was only for his information. We are prepared to