Crl. Misc. No. M-32525 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32525 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 23,2012 Mewa Singh................................................ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Goel, Advocate for Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) On the statement of the petitioner-Mewa Singh, FIR No. 53 dated 22.4.2004 under Sections 341, 506, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC was registered in Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda. After investigation, a cancellation report was recommended on 4.3.2005. This report was submitted in the Court of Magistrate on 23.5.2005. The Magistrate ordered further investigation on 21.7.2007 and thereafter the police filed a challan on Crl. Misc. No. M-32525 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] 12.8.2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P2). During the pendency of further investigation the police had prepared Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against the present petitioner on 11.06.2005 (Annexure P5) and the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 3.10.2005 (Annexure P6). Thereafter, charges were framed on 16.2.2006 (Annexure P7). Precise argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the challan had been presented on 12.8.2007 (Annexure P2) and further investigation was conducted, continuation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC does not survive. A similar question came up for consideration before Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh, Lambardar vs. State of Punjab 1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 70 wherein in para 3, the Court has held as under:- “3. The petitioner claims that the same is illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court. According to him the complaint/Kalandra could be filed by Senior Superintendent of Police to whom the complaint was made. In any case, it is contended that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others are pending and it is to be adjudicated if it is true or false. Thus, on the basis of complaint, the petitioner could not be prosecuted.” The position in the present case is identical as the challan has been presented on 12.08.2007 and the trial is continuing. In these circumstances, Kalandra deserves to be quashed. In view of the above, this Criminal Miscellaneous is Crl. Misc. No. M-32525 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] allowed. The proceedings/Kalandra (Annexure P-5) under Section 182 IPC are quashed. 23.1.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora/Rupi JUDGE