209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57927-2024 Date of Decision:07.04.2026 Gulista …Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Ms. Mehak Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to quash the Kalandra DD No.20, under Section 182 of IPC (Annexure P-3) dated 27.08.2022, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising out therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had got registered one FIR No.66 dated 22.03.2021, under Sections 376(2)(n),506 of IPC, Police Station Women, Ballabgarh (Annexure P-1) against Imran and others by alleging that on 22.07.2010, her brother-in-law committed rape on her. Later on, he apologized and also threatened her to keep mum. Learned counsel further contends that after registration of the FIR (Annexure P-1), the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 23.02.2021 and he had supported the allegations levelled by her. Even, she was medico-legally examined by doctor on 23.03.2021 and as per the opinion of the doctor, the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. However, the police did not conduct the investigation fairly and obtained her signatures on blank papers. Even, an alleged compromise was prepared, without the consent/knowledge of the petitioner. Ultimately, vide the cancellation report (Annexure P-2) dated 12.06.2021, the police had cancelled the F.I.R in the present case. Thereafter, the police prepared the impugned Kalandra under Section 182 of IPC (Annexure P-3) on 27.08.2022. Since, the police had wrongly prepared a cancellation report, the petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate, which was pending before the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further vehemently argued that the police had prepared the Kalandra with malafide intention in collusion with the accused in the FIR (Annexure P-1). However, the maximum sentence, which could be awarded under Section 182 IPC is six months and as per the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation for taking cognizance is also one year. In the present case, the cancellation report was prepared on 12.06.2021, whereas, the impugned Kalandra (Annexure P-3) under Section 182 IPC was prepared on 27.08.2022 and was thus barred by limitation. Apart from that, the protest petition filed by the petitioner was still pending before the Court of Magistrate and on this ground also, the Kalandra was liable to be quashed by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to controvert the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record carefully.

6. I find sufficient force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, it is apparent that after filing of the cancellation report, the present petitioner had already filed a protest petition/complaint (Annexure P-4) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. Consequently, during the pendency of the protest petition, the Kalandra under Section 182 IPC was not maintainable before the Court of Magistrate.

7. While discussing a similar proposition of law, this Court has held in the matter of “Tarlochan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 791 as follows:-

“6. In Ranta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR (Criminal) 133, the first information report lodged by the petitioner was found to be false during investigation and he was prosecuted for an offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code. The petitio