Crl.Misc.No.M-41369 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-41369 of 2007. Decided on: February 19, 2010. Gunjeet Kaur .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Ms.Monika Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arshvider Singh, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Aggrieved by the in action of the police, complaint (Annexure P-2), under Sections 406, 498-A/34 IPC, was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, which led to the summoning of the accused vide summoning order 30.03.2006 (AnnexureP-3). As the original complaint filed before the Senior Superintendent of Police, by the petitioner was found false, a Calendra under Section 182 IPC, was presented in the Court by the SHO. Copy of the Calendra submitted by SHO, dated 02.04.2007, is . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-41369 of 2007 Annexure P1. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the subject matter of the case is covered by the ratio of the judgments in Banta Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) RCR (Crl.), 133, and Ramti Devi Vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1), RCR (Crl.), Page-385, wherein it has been held that when a police sends Calendra against a person under Section 182 IPC, for making a false statement in his/her complaint to the police in respect of an offence regarding which the said person has already filed a complaint before the Magistrate and the Magistrate summons the accused, in such circumstances, the complaint under Section 182 IPC, cannot proceed and deserves to be quashed. In this concern, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Brij Pal Palta, AIR, 1989 SC, Page-355, has held that once a complaint filed by the informant which is based on the same facts and allegations on which the first information was registered, is being proceeded with, it is not open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed. It was held that if a case under Section 182 IPC, is allowed to proceed the evidence in such case would tantamount prejudging the complaint filed by complainant. Therefore, the prosecution of complaint under Section 182 IPC, during pendency of this complaint is an abuse of process of the Court. Besides this, the complaint filed by the petitioner was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, whereas the Calendra has been presented under Section 182 IPC by the SHO . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-41369 of 2007 concerned. In this context, the matter is no more res integra in view of the judgment in case Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1991 (3), RCR (Crl.), Page 113, where a Calendra submitted by Sub Inspector of Police was held to be not maintainable as the original complaint had been made in writing to the Senior Superintendent of Police. It was held that it was only the Senior Superintendent of Police, who would be entitled to file such a complaint. In view of the above circumstances, the Calendra Annexure P-1, against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition is allowed. The Calendra and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 19, 2010. rka . . . 3