Crl. Misc. No. M – 19532 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 19532 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision:- 6.4.2010 Gurdas Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. Petitioner – Gurdas Singh has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of Kalandra (Annexure P-5), filed against him under Section 182 IPC in FIR No. 59 dated 18.6.2006 registered under Section 325, 324, 323, 341 and 34 IPC, in Police Station Moonak and all the consequent proceedings. The facts, which have not been disputed, are that the above said FIR was registered against the petitioner and his family members on the basis of the statement of Sukhdev Singh, in which they were challaned. In that FIR itself statement of the petitioner was recorded, who came out with a cross-version against the complainant-party. However, that cross-version was found to be false and proceedings were initiated against him under Section 182 IPC by the officer in-charge of the said police station. The case of the petitioner is that he himself and his family members received injuries at the hands of the complainant-party, but the Crl. Misc. No. M – 19532 of 2009(O&M) -2- police failed to take any action in the cross-version put forward by him. Sukhdev Singh and others were declared innocent by the police which was the result of connivance between them. Aggrieved by that action of the police, he filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sunam, under Sections 324, 325, 452, 379, 506 and 34 IPC, in which the complainant and others were summoned under Sections 323/324 and 452 IPC vide order dated 27.3.2008. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the private complaint has been entertained by Judicial Magistrate, First Class and summoning order has been passed, it cannot be said that the version given by the petitioner in the said FIR was false and as such proceedings under Section 182 IPC are liable to be quashed. He has relied upon Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 718. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that the facts as narrated by the petitioner in the complaint are different from the facts which were stated by him in his cross-version and as such it cannot be held that this complaint relates to the same occurrence. Filing of the complaint is only a defence made by the petitioner to save himself from those proceedings. It has been pleaded by petitioner in Para No.7 of the petition that aggrieved by the action of the police, he had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sunam, in which summoning order dated 27.3.2008 has already been passed. Those facts have not been specifically denied by the respondent in the reply. The summoning order has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. Crl. Misc. No. M – 19532 of 2009(O&M) -3- I have carefully gone through the contents of the report recorded in the Daily Diary Register on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, which constitute his cross-version and the complaint which was filed by him before the Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P-6). Both the occurrences are stated to be of 17.6.2006 and the facts are also the same though the sequence has been changed and some improvements have also been made. Yet it cannot be made a ground for concluding that the complaint has not been filed regarding the same occurrence. In Ramesh Chand's case (supra), the FIR was lodged by the petitioners and after investigation by the police the allegations levelled by him were found to be false. The police submitted Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner for lodging a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the accused person on the same allegations on which the summoning order was passed. It was held that it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR were false and as such proceedings under Section 182 IPC are liable to be quashed. The ratio of this ruling squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore the proceedings under Section 182 IPC are liable to be quashed. The petition is accepted accordingly. The proceedings under Section 182 IPC initiated against the petitioner are ordered to be quashed. April 6, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge