IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16725 of 2008 Date of decision: 23rd March, 2009 Sukhbir Singh Paintal … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present petition was filed by Sukhbir Singh Paintal. He has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has sought quashing of Kalandra No. 632 dated 08.12.2001 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Rewari, where petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 182 IPC. Petitioner has further prayed that order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari (Annexure P-3) in revision petition preferred by the petitioner, whereby order (Annexure P-2) was affirmed, be also set aside. To appreciate the arguments raised, facts can be gathered from the petition and the annexures attached thereto. A Daily Diary Report (DDR) was lodged by one Mahesh Kumar Sharma at Police Station Dharuhera, wherein it was stated that certain documents and cheques bearing No. 714201 – 714205 have been lost at bus stand of Dharuhera. For getting the DDR recorded, an affidavit Criminal Misc. No. M-16725 of 2008 in support of the averments, was also sworn by Mahesh Kumar Sharma. He was employed as Accountant with a Company, which belong to the petitioner and the entire control of the Company also vest in the petitioner. Subsequently, a complaint was got registered by one Sanjeev Kapoor, another employee of the Company, on 14th November, 2000, in which it was stated that the cheques were not lost, but stolen from the factory by one person named Sanjay Aggarwal. Both the DDRs got recorded by the employees of the petitioner’s Company were found to be false as it surfaced that Sanjay Aggarwal had instituted a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as the cheques issued by the petitioner had bounced, as payment of the cheques was stopped. Quashing of the Kalandra has been sought on three grounds: (i) That as per the ratio of law laid down in ‘Malkiat Singh v. State of Haryana’ 1999 (2) RCR (Criminal) 10, petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of DDR lodged, as in the present case, no FIR was recorded on the basis of DDR, therefore, police action was not set into motion and offence under Section 182 IPC is not made out. (ii) That petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of his two employees, namely Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Sanjeev Kapoor, as they had lodged DDRs dated 1st March, 2000 and 14th November, 2000, respectively. (iii) That the Company has lodged the complaint through its authorized employee, Sanjeev Kapoor against Sanjay Aggarwal (Annexure P-4) on the basis of two DDRs in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. In the complaint, it has been averred that Sanjay Aggarwal got the cheques unlawfully. Therefore, till the complaint (Annexure P- 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-16725 of 2008 4) is decided, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 182 IPC. It has been further submitted that Complaint (Annexure P-4) has been sent by the Court to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rewari for inquiry under the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana. Counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment rendered by this Court in Malkiat Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been further submitted that the petitioner, through employees of his Company, had given false information to the police to create his defence in complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted by Sanjay Aggarwal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made. A perusal of the judgment of Malkiat Singh’s case (supra) reveals that in that case Kalandra submitted by the police for prosecution under Section 182 IPC was quashed taking various factors into consideration. The judgment, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, is on facts of that case. Section 182 (a) IPC specifically states that on the basis of information supplied, public servant may do or omit to do anything, which such public servant ought not to do or omit if true state of facts, respecting which such information is given, were known to him. Section 182 (b) IPC states that in case false facts are given to use lawful power of public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, then offence is made out. In the present case, two DDRs were lodged to cause injury and annoyance to Sanjay Aggarwal, who had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-16725 of 2008 Second submission made by the petitioner that he cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of two employees of his Company, cannot be appreciated in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether petitioner acted in concert, collusion or in common intention with his two employees, namely, Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Sanjeev Kapoor, is a matter of evidence. The trial Court, therefore, will be in a better position to appreciate this contention, after evidence is concluded by the prosecution. The third argument raised that complaint has been preferred and same is pending on the same set of facts before the Court in Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, is of no help to the petitioner, as the complaint has been sent for the inquiry to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, and therefore, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari has not taken any cognizance. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 23, 2009 rps 4