CHANDIGARH vs State of Punjab

12.07.2002 Mrs. Anjana Rai w/o Mr. D.R. Rai Scientist, CIPHET, attempted to hit him with her scooter, in the office campus of Institute during office hours. It was further stated that earlier Mr. D.R. Rai, Scientist, CIPHET threatened the petitioner in the office during office hour. It was further stated that copy of the ration card of the petitioner , Form D-1, had been taken out from the Ration Depot, 636 PAU Market, Ludhiana(Annexure P-3) by Mrs. Anjana Rai. It was further stated that the photographs of the whole family of the petitioner, could be misused for attempt on life the petitioners through others with malafide intention. Copy of complaint, (Annexure P-2) was also attached with the aforesaid complaint. Enquiry into the allegations, contained in the complaint, was made, by the Police, and the same were found to be false. Ultimately, Kalendra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-4), was filed. The petitioner was summoned.

3. An application was filed for dropping the proceedings, by the petitioner, but vide the order dated

03.11.2008, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, dismissed the same. Crl. Misc. No.M-22761 of 2009 --3-- 4 A revision petition was filed, against the order, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 01.05.2009, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that no FIR on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, referred to above, was registered. He has further submitted that in the absence of registration of an FIR, no proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, could be lodged by the Station House Officer on the basis of enquiry in the complaint finding the allegations therein to be false. He has further submitted that even, if, it is assumed, that false information was given to the Police, vide Annexure P-3, with a view to initiate security proceedings against the complainant, it did not amount to commission of offence, under Section 182 IPC. He has further submitted that the averments, contained in the complaint, (Annexure P-3), made by the petitioner, were only with a view to seek protection to his life and liberty, which he apprehended at the hands of the complainant. He also placed reliance on Malkiat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 10, Davinder v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 782, and Satya Pal Soni v. Union Territory, Chandigarh , Crl. Misc. No.M-22761 of 2009 --4-- through the Secretary to UT, Home Department, Chandigarh, 1983(1) RCR (Criminal) 207 in support of his contentions. He has further submitted that continuation of the kalendra, the orders, aforesaid and the subsequent proceedings, against the petitioner, would amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court.

7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that after due enquiry, the allegations, contained in the complaint (Annexure P-3), submitted by the petitioner, before the Station House Officer, were found to be false. He has further submitted that, during the course of enquiry, it was found that Mrs. Anjana Rai had filed a contempt petition, against the petitioner and, therefore, in order to pressurise her to withdraw the same, he submitted a false complaint (Annexure P-3). He has further submitted that since the allegations, contained in the complaint (Annexure P-3), were false, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC could certainly be lodged. He has further submitted that no FIR was required to be registered as the averments, made in the complaint, were found to prima-facie suspicious. He has further submitted that continuation of the kalendra, and the orders passed therein, as also the subsequent proceedings, would not amount to the sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Crl. Misc. No.M-22761 of 2009 --5--

8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the petition should be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. If the allegations, contained in the complaint (Annexure P-3) , submitted by the petitioner, before the Station House Officer, disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, it was required of the said SHO to, in the first instance, register a criminal case, and thereafter hold an enquiry/investigation. Not only this, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the allegations, contained in the complaint (Annexure P-3), moved by the petitioner, before the Station House Officer, did not disclose any cognizable offence, but only related to the apprehension of threat to his life at the hands of complainant and protection to his life and liberty was sought by him therein, it could not be said that the same (allegations) were false, attracting the provisions of Section 182 IPC. The perusal of the contents of complaint, (Annexure P-3), as a whole, in nut shell, gives rise to the factum, that, in fact, the petitioner apprehending danger to his life, and liberty at the hands of the complainant, asked for protection from the Police Authorities. In Malkiat Singh's case (supra), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that if a criminal complaint discloses a cognizable Crl. Misc. No.M-22761 of 2009 --6-- offence and the Station House Officer, investigation/enquiry, without registration of an FIR, the same was contrary to law. It was further held that no complaint under Section 182 Cr.P.C., could be filed by the SHO, if the complaint was found to be false, without registration of the FIR, in such a case. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Davinder's case (supra). In Satya Pal Soni's case (supra), false information was given to the Police, with a view to initiating security proceedings, against a person. In these circumstances, it was held that the same did not amount to attracting the provisions of Section 182 IPC. In Kantilal Damodardas v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 Gujarat 218 it was held that any false information, given by a witness, to the Police, and recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would not entitle it, to launch prosecution, under Section 182 IPC. No case lying down the principle of law, to the contrary, was cited by the Counsel for the respondent-State. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC could not be lodged. The Kalendra, under Section 182 IPC, the orders, referred to above, and the subsequent proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the same are liable to be quashed. Crl. Misc. No.M-22761 of 2009 --7--

9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No.M-22761 of 2009, filed by Bangali Baboo, petitioner, is accepted. Resultantly, the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-4), the order dated 3.11.2008, (Annexure P-6), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and the order dated 1.5.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, (Annexure P-7), vide which the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed, qua the petitioner, are quashed.

10. The Registry is directed to send copies of the order, to the Courts concerned, immediately, by all modes of communication. April 27,2010 dinesh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE