IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11334-2014 (O&M)

Decided on : 07.07.2025 Pardipt Chaudhary . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Through instant petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS, 2023), petitioner – Pardipt Chaudhary, has prayed for quashing of the Kalandra under Section 182, 211 of IPC, dated 12.05.2013, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

2. Petitioner had filed one complaint against one Renuka d/o Ranbir Singh on 18.01.2011, alleging therein that Renuka had visited the school, where minor son of the petitioner was studying and while visiting in the school, she tried to forcibly take the child along with her. However, on alarming by the child, and on the intervention of the teacher, it was not allowed to happen.

Apprehending some mischief at the hands of Renuka or her other family members, because of the ongoing serious disputes in the family including the one under section 302 of IPC. The allegations levelled in the complaint were enquired into by the police, and therein ,it was considered to be a very trivial issue. The allegations were verified by SI Nand Kishore and thereupon, final report was prepared on 18.02.2011 by the then SHO, Civil Lines Karnal, i.e., Inspector Ramesh Kumar. In the final report it was concluded that Renuka was not found to have visited at junior wing of STC School, Sector 9, Karnal, and that Renuka had not come from the main gate of the primary wing of the School, rather, had come from the main gate of main branch of the School. It was also concluded in the final report that there were family disputes and cases are still going on between the complainant and the respondent party for the last two years. Ultimately, it was concluded that on the basis of some suspicion, complaint appears to have been submitted. As no cognizable offence was made out, Complaint No.72 dated 18.02.2011, was consigned and complainant (petitioner herein) was subjected to the legal action in the form of presentation of impugned Kalandra, under Section 182, 211 of IPC.

3. SUBMISSIONS ADDRESSED BY PETITIONER’S COUNSEL: -

(i) While challenging the Kalandra, counsel for the petitioner submits that offence under section 182 IPC is maximum punishable for a period of SIX months. Since complaint No.72- P was moved by the petitioner on 18.01.2011, Kalandra under section 182 IPC can be registered only upto the period of one year thereafter, and therefore, registration of Kalandra, vide DDR No.22 on 12.05.2012, is hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

Petitioner submits that main allegation is of moving of a false complaint and registering of Kalandra and same is definitely beyond limitation and it requires to be quashed on this ground.

(ii) He further submits that complaint was addressed to Superintendent of Police, Karnal, but Kalandra has been registered by SHO Civil Lines Karnal. Therefore, Kalandra could either be prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, himself and then only the Court could be able to take cognizance of the same.

Referring to Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., counsel for the petitioner argues that Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant, to whom he is administratively subordinate. Thus, SHO who prepared Kalandra, is not the officer to whom the original complaint dated 18.01.2011 was addressed by the petitioner, nor the addressee of complaint is Administratively subordinate to the Authority preparing Kalandra.

In other way round, it could be anyone administratively seni