IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-23490 of 2008 Date of decision : 04.02.2009 Inderjit Kaur and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Calendra bearing Report No. 35 dated 07.12.2005, registered under Section 182 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar on the basis of compromise. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a complaint case bearing No. 121-1 dated 07.12.2005 was filed by petitioner No. 1 in the court of SDJM, Muktsar under Section 323,324,326,452, 506 and 34 IPC. Pursuant to the complaint filed, respondent No. 2 and her mother-in-law namely Angrej Kaur were summoned by the court. According to the counsel, during the pendency of the said complaint before the Court, the police moved the instant 'Calendra' under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner on the ground that false information had been supplied to the police. Counsel submits that 'Calendra' was submitted on the basis of inquiry conducted by the police pursuant to a complaint made by her Crl. Misc No. M-23490 of 2008 -2- to the police before he preferred a private complaint before SDJM, Muktsar. Counsel further submits that on 01.08.2008 when the complainant, namely Inderjeet Kaur, appeared before the trial court in the complaint case, she closed her evidence without examining any witnesses. Prior to that, a compromise has also been arrived at between the parties, copy whereof is Annexure P-2 to the petition. Even during the proceedings pending before the JMIC, Muktsar, respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court and stated that she had given the statement under pressure of the police and infact no occurrence had taken place. Learned counsel for the State has submits that under Section 182 IPC the question of compromise did not arise. On the other hand counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that entire proceedings in the 'Calendra' were initiated on the application of respondent No. 2 which she had withdrawn. Thus proceedings under Section 182 IPC may not be allowed to continue any further. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone carefully through the entire controversy. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by this Court in Banta Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1995(3) RCR, 133 and submits that since the proceedings pursuant to the complaint case preferred by the petitioners, were already pending before the SDJM, Muktsar, therefore the police could not have invoked Section 182 IPC to file a report thereunder. He further stresses the legal proposition that if case under Section 182 IPC is allowed to proceed during the pendency of a complaint, a decision in the said case would tantamount to prejudging the complaint filed by the petitioners, therefore Crl. Misc No. M-23490 of 2008 -3- the prosecution under Section 182 would evidently be an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure P-2 of the petition i.e. compromise arrived at between the parties, which is not disputed either by respondent No 2 or by learned State counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that proceedings under Section 182 IPC deserve to be quashed. It is apparent that the parties have compromised the matter. No useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioners. This apart, it is evident from the record that in a complaint case which was pending before the trial court, the complainant had closed her evidence without examining any witness. In Banta Singh's judgment (supra) this court after noticing the ratio of a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1989 S.C. 355 held as under : “ It is apparent that if the case under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, is allowed to proceed, a decision in the said case would tantamount to prejudging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, during the pendency of his complaint is evidently an abuse of the process of the Court, and it would be but proper to secure the ends of justice, to quash these proceedings. It is ordered accordingly”. In the circumstances, the 'Calendra' filed by the police under Section 182 IPC during the pendency of the complaint deserves to be Crl. Misc No. M-23490 of 2008 -4- quashed. Thus, proceedings pending under Section 182 IPC before JMIC, Muktsar are hereby quashed. 04.02.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE