IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Azad Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 07.05.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.05.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 11.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Divyam Dhakla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of Calandra/DD No. 22 dated 11.09.2018, under Section 182 of the IPC, filed by respondent No.2-SHO, Police Station Safidon in FIR No. 267 dated 27.06.2017, under Sections 148, 149, 386 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Safion, District Jind and all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the petitioner/complainant alleging that on the intervening night of 26/27.06.2017, 7-8 unknown persons armed ₹

with pistols forcibly entered into his house and demanded 27 lakhs and otherwise threatened to kill him and his family. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, Section 452 IPC was also added. Thereafter, the police conducted investigation and ultimately prepared a cancellation report alleging the allegations to be false and subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner by presenting a Calandra on 11.09.2018. Feeling aggrieved from filing of the complaint/Calandra, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceedings under Section 182 of IPC are wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. It is argued that the petitioner had lodged a genuine complaint regarding forcible trespass into his house by 7-8 armed persons, consequent thereto, the aforementioned FIR No. 267 had been registered. However, the police failed to conduct a fair investigation and in collusion with the accused persons, intentionally ignored material facts and hurriedly prepared a cancellation report. It is further argued that respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 182 of IPC against the petitioner, inasmuch as respondent No.2 was not the Investigating Officer of the case. The impugned Calandra has been initiated by the same authority before whom the complaint was lodged, which is impermissible in law in view of Section 195 of the Code, as proceedings under Section 182 of IPC can only be initiated by a superior authority.

4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation report submitted by the police had been accepted by the competent Court only on 04.07.2023, whereas the impugned Calandra was filed on 11.09.2018 and, therefore, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 182 of IPC against the petitioner stands vitiated on this ground alone and amounts to abuse of process of law. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed, thereby quashing the impugned Calandra along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom. To buttress his arguments, In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon the judgments in Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 791, Kuljit Singh v. State of Haryana and others, CRM-M-38769-2011, decided on 27.05.2015, State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969