CRM No. M-5064 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-5064 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 21, 2011 Ashok Kumar Goel son of Sh. Lal Chand .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of a report under Section 182 IPC filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Nabha and the order dated 09.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha, vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been dismissed by the Court as also the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 09.01.2010. CRM No. M-5064 of 2010 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Kalandra, which has been submitted under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner, is without any basis and what is attributed to have been committed by the petitioner is incorporated in a false complaint dated 07.10.2008 submitted by him, wherein the names of Yashwinderjit Gupta and Hemraj Mittal have been mentioned. He contends that in the said application, no allegations were made against them and the said application was in the form of an information, which was given by him on the basis of information disclosed by two unidentified persons, who accosted and surrounded him and one of them had caught hold of his collar and gave him slaps. In the said application, except for mentioning the names, which were brought out by two unidentified persons, mentioned above, no allegations were made against them. Referring to the statement of the petitioner dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-3), counsel for the petitioner states that in the said application also, nothing has been mentioned against Yashwinderjit Gupta or Hemraj Mittal. He, on this basis, contends that the offence under Section 182 IPC is not made out and, therefore, the report under Section 182 IPC submitted by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and consequently, he prays for quashing of the orders dated 09.01.2010 rejecting his application for discharge and the framing of charge against the petitioner. An objection has been raised by the counsel for respondent No. 2 that against the orders impugned, a revision is maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and without availing the said remedy, the petitioner having approached this Court, the present petition qua these two orders is not maintainable. On merits, counsel for the complainant and the State CRM No. M-5064 of 2010 3 submit that on enquiry, the application, which was submitted by the petitioner on 07.10.2008, has been found to be false and, therefore, the report submitted against the petitioner does not deserve to be quashed. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The basic documents, on which Kalandara under Section 182 IPC has been founded, are the application dated 07.10.2008 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) and the statement dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) given by the petitioner before the Investigating Agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C. A perusal of both the documents clearly indicate that the petitioner has not made any false allegations against Yashwinderjit Gupta or Hemraj Mittal. What has been stated therein is only an information which he received from two unidentified persons, who are stated to have accosted and surrounded the petitioner and out of which, one had caught hold of his collar and gave him slaps. That information, which has been supplied, was only a hearsay statement which the petitioners at that moment or thereafter did not know or had any reason to believe to be false and the offence under Section 182 IPC, which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, is thus, not made out from the Kalandra (Annexure P-1), which is based on these documents. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has tried to bring the offences to have been committed by the petitioner under the ambit of illustration (c) given under Section 182 IPC, wherein it has been stated that if a false information is given to a police officer about the assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village without mentioning the name of any person or any assailant but knowing that it was likely to have the CRM No. M-5064 of 2010 4 consequence of annoyance of the villagers or some of them the offence would have been committed. Similar is the position, according to the counsel for respondent No. 2, prevailing in the present case as the name of Yashwinderjit Gupta and Hemraj Mittal has been intentionally mentioned by the petitioner in his application dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C as they are son-in-law and his brother with whom he had strained relations. I am afraid, I will not be in a position to accept the contentions, as raised by the counsel for respondent No. 2 as the said intention has to be culled out from the assertions made in the application and the statement, which is not made out. If no offence under Section 182 IPC is made out against the petitioner, the Kalandra submitted against the petitioner in the Court by SHO, Police Station Kotwali Nabha dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. Having reached this conclusion, the consequential effect thereof would be that the charge framed against the petitioner vide order dated 09.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) would itself fall requiring no further order to be passed as regards the order dated 09.01.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharge. The present petition is allowed by quashing Kalandra dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) September 21, 2011 JUDGE pj