1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2274 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.11.2009 *** Lakhwinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay condoned. Through the instant revision petition a challenge has been laid to order dated 1.3.2008 vide which accused-respondent No.4 has been discharged of the offence under Section 182 IPC. In nutshell background of the case is that on 20.7.2006 respondent No.4 filed an application against the petitioner to the S.P. City containing the allegations that he took an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from her on the false pretext of sending her son abroad. The said application was marked to SHO concerned, who found the allegations contained in the application as false. Therefore, petitioner filed an application for taking action against respondent No.4 and consequently calendra under Section 182 IPC was filed against her by the SHO. On appearance, respondent No.4 raised a preliminary objection that calendra as filed by the SHO is not maintainable in the light of provisions of Section 195(a) Cr.P.C. and complaint must have been made in writing by the S.P. Before whom the application was filed by respondent No.4 or any other public servant superior to him. As noticed above, her said objection was accepted and respondent No.4 has been discharged vide impugned order. Hence this revision petition. Admittedly, in the present case the application for taking action 2 against the petitioner was filed by respondent No.4 before S.P. City, which allegedly was found false and the prosecution under Section 182 IPC against respondent No.4 was never launched on the basis of any complaint made in writing by the said public servant i.e. S.P.City or any other officer to whom he is subordinate, but it is the SHO who took the cognizance of the matter. Hence, the Court below while relying upon the cases of Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 1991(3) RCR 113 and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana1999(3) RCR (Crl.) 323 rightly concluded that the prosecution against respondent No.4 is bad in view of bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. and accordingly discharged her. Even this Court has a serious doubt as to the maintainability of the present revision petition by Lakhwinder Singh for invoking provisions under Section 182 IPC against respondent No.4, which otherwise can only be resorted to by a public servant from whose end some action is sought. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Court below has committed any error in law, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 10,2009 Jiten