Criminal Misc. No. M-15097 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15097 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.04.2010 Ramesh Chand son of Lalji Mal, r/o H. No. 1083/5, Bhagwan Nagar, Pipli, District Kurukshetra. ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. Mr. Gourav Singla, Advocate, for the complainant. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the kalandra dated 16.10.04 (Annexure P3), under Section 182 IPC, submitted by the Police, Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, and, all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. A complaint, was made, by the petitioner, before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, against Jaspal Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of Bohli, District Kurukshetra, on the Criminal Misc. No. M-15097 of 2009 2 allegations, that an agreement dated 28.10.97, was entered into, between Kamlesh Gupta (wife of the petitioner) and Jaspal Singh, in respect of his land, and, the earnest money, in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, was received by him, in the presence of the witnesses. It was stated that, after some days, when it came to the fore, that the land, was not in the name of Jaspal Singh, the earnest money was demanded back, from him. It was further stated that, Jaspal Singh, promised to return the amount, in the year 2002, and also agreed to pay the lease amount, but till 2001, despite repeated requests, neither the amount of lease was paid nor the earnest money was returned. Many other complaints, in this regard, were also filed by the complainant. It was further stated that action be taken against Jaspal Singh. 3. During the course of investigation, the complaints made by the petitioner, were found to be false and the proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C., were initiated against the petitioner, by filing a kalandra, by the Station House Officer. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, though, the complaint, was made, to the Deputy Commissioner, yet, the kalandra, was instituted, by the Station House Officer. He further submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., the kalandra, could be filed either by a public servant concerned or some other public servant, to whom, he was administratively Criminal Misc. No. M-15097 of 2009 3 subordinate. He further submitted that, since the kalandra, had not been submitted by either the Deputy Commissioner or his superior officer, but, by the Station House Officer, no cognizance, could be taken. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, did not dispute the factual position that, though, the complaint, was made, to the Deputy Commissioner, yet the kalandra, was filed, by the Station House Officer. He, however, submitted that, the Station House Officer, could file the kalandra. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, the complaint, (Annexure P2) was made, by the petitioner, against Jaspal Singh, to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. The allegations, in that complaint, were allegedly found to be false. The question arises, as to who was competent to institute the kalandra, under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. Under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, kalandra, could be instituted, by the public servant, to whom, the complaint, was made, or, by a public servant, to whom, that public servant was administratively subordinate. In Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal), 323 (P&H), complaint against the Manager of Gramin Bank, was made to the Deputy Commissioner, who found the same to be false and forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police. Criminal Misc. No. M-15097 of 2009 4 The Station House Officer, filed kalandra, under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings were quashed, on the ground, that the kalanrda, could be filed, either by the Deputy Commissioner, to whom, the complaint, was made, or, by an officer, to whom, he was administratively subordinate. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 SC 1206), State of U.P. Vs. Mata Bhikh and others, 1994( 4 ) SCC 95, P.D. Lakhani and another Vs. State of Punjab and others (2008(2) RCR (Crl.) 838 (SC), Gulzar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal), 185 (P&H), and, Dr. Sham Lal Thukral Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 168. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous deserves to be accepted. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is accepted. Kalandra, under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, (Annexure P3), and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. 8. The Registry shall send copies of the order to the concerned Courts, immediately. 20.04.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE