Crl. Misc. No. M- 20692 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 20692 of 2008 Date of decision:- 14.12.2011 Dr. Sumeet Sofat .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Navjeet singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the State. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had allegedly filed a complaint making allegation of attempt to kidnap with intention to kill him against the respondents to DIG, Ludhiana Range and SSP, Ludhiana with a copy to SHO, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. The petitioner claims to have sent a registered letter through speed post to the DGP, Punjab and SP, City II, Ludhiana on 29.2.2008. Copy of the representation to SSP Ludhiana has been annexed with the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the officials did not take any action on the complaint. The petitioner also claims that it Crl. Misc. No. M- 20692 of 2008 -2- reveals commission of cognizable offence. Aggrieved against this action, the petitioner has filed Crl. Misc. No.6253 of 2008 on 10.3.2008 calling direction for registering an FIR against the guilty accused persons. Notice was issued and SSP Ludhiana was required to submit a status report. Instead of registering the FIR, the Police carried out an inquiry. This as per the petitioner was unilaterally done in a high-handed manner. Thereafter, the Police had filed a kalandara against the petitioner under Section 182 and 211 IPC before the Illaqa Magistrate on 10.3.2008 on the ground that the petitioner had made a false allegation. The present petition is, accordingly, filed by the petitioner for quashing of this kalandara in the interest of justice and equity. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of all the subsequent proceedings. Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed. It is stated that this petition has been filed with an oblique motive and for ulterior consideration. As per the reply, the entire petition is engulfed with distorted/twisted version of facts. It is also submitted that the petitioner has made a blatant attempt to create bias in the mind of this Court so as to take undue advantage. It is further submitted that the petitioner in order to achieve his nefarious designs has levelled the false and frivolous allegations against the local police and further deliberately withheld the inquiry report submitted by respondent No.3, into the complaint submitted by the petitioner. It is also mentioned that apart from submitting applications to DIG, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, the petitioner had also submitted the complaint to respondent No.3-SHO. The SHO had also conducted an inquiry into the application Crl. Misc. No. M- 20692 of 2008 -3- submitted by the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner cooked up a false and fabulous story and all these allegations were found to be false. On this basis, Kalandara was filed against the petitioner under Section 182/211 IPC. This is stated to be in accordance with the strict provisions of law and accordingly, prayer is made for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold submissions before me. First, he submits that the complaint was filed to DIG and SSP and the Kalandara, thus, could have been filed only by these authorities or any of the authorities to whom they were subordinate. This fact has clearly been denied in the reply and as per the reply, copy of the complaint was also given to SHO, who has conducted the inquiry in this case. Accordingly, Kalandara filed by the SHO cannot be faulted on the ground that it was not filed by the competent officer in terms of provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Second ground of attack is that he has already filed a complaint for the same allegation for which the police has declined to register the FIR and has filed a Kalandara before the Illaqa Magistrate. Counsel, thus, contends that it cannot be said that allegation which he has made in complaint were false. At least the proceedings on the Kalandara must await the outcome of this complaint as otherwise there is a chance of the Court of passing contradictory orders, if the evidence is found sufficient enough to summon the respondents, which is produced in the complaint filed by the petitioner. Only fact mentioned in the petition is that the complaint has been filed. Copy of the complaint has also been annexed with Crl. Misc. No. M- 20692 of 2008 -4- the petition. As per the allegation some evidence has been recorded. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that so far no summoning has been taken place. Merely because a complaint has been filed before the Court, which has not led the summoning, would not be a reason enough to stay the proceedings, which are in progress against the petitioner on the basis of Kalandara filed. The counsel for the private respondents is justified in making a grievance that the petitioner is in the habit of filing complaints against the private respondents. As many as 17 complaints and petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the private respondents and majority of these have been dismissed. In some of the cases the petitioner has also been burdened with costs. It, thus, appears that the petitioner is in the habit of filing false complaints. Apparently, he is misusing and abusing the process of Court. Even the complaint seems to be one such instance where he has just filed the complaint for the purpose of stalling the proceedings in Kalandara proceedings which are now in progress against him. The petitioner has already been proceeded against on the basis of Kalandara. In my view, the proceedings should be brought to logical conclusions. Even if the summoning takes place in the complaint that may not have any effect on the Kalandara as the Court has to see if any false allegations are made. The petitioner would be able to plead before the Court on the basis of outcome of the complaint that he has filed. Even mere summoning would not mean that the complaint is true or correct. It is only the conviction on the basis of the complaint, if recorded, that it may have effect on the Kalandara. If ultimately, the conviction takes place on the basis of a complaint, the petitioner may seek Crl. Misc. No. M- 20692 of 2008 -5- interference in the case of Kalandara. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. December 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE