132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 Sanjeev Dhiman ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Sumit S. Bairagi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of Kalandra under Section 182 IPC dated 31.10.2021 issued by respondent No.3, whereby, CHI No.1213 of 2021 has been registered against the petitioner before learned JMIC, Kurukshetra and all the subsequent pending proceedings arising out of the same.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra on the allegations of mental and physical harassment at the behest of his in-laws. After inquiry by respondent No.3, the complaint was found to be false. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing of the Kalandra proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner filed a complaint before respondent No.2 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra on the allegations of mental and physical harassment at the behest of his in-law. He submits that the complaint was marked to respondent No.3 i.e. SHO, Police Station, Kuruksehtra University Kurukshetra, however, after conducting inquiry in the same, respondent No.3 found the same to be false. He further submits that thereafter, respondent No.3 without any authority has wrongly issued the impugned Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner. It is submitted that various complaint and false cases were filed by wife of the petitioner against the petitioner in UK as well as in Delhi. He submits that the police officials had failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation in the matter and illegally issued Kalandra under Section 182 IPC without taking into consideration the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint. He has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Laxmi Narain Sharma vs. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-10328-2022 decided on 03.07.2023 and Sajjan Singh vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M- 19718-2022 decided on 20.03.2024 and thus, submits that as per the law settled, Kalandra, if any, could have been issued by Superintendent of Police or the officer, senior to him. He, thus submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned Kalandra deserves to be quashed.

4. Notice of motion to the official respondents only.

5. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. He though has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, however, does not dispute the legal propositions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the petitioner had submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, which was marked to respondent No.3 for inquiry. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, respondent No.3 proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC by issuing the impugned Kalandra dated 31.10.2021. It is a settled proposition of law that in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C., cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC can be taken only upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The SHO, who merely conducted the inquiry, was not competent to initiate such proceedings when the original complaint had been made to the Superintendent of Police.

6. To understand the controversy in hand, statutory provisions of Section 195 IPC is necessary to be considered, which is reproduced as under:-

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offenc