CRM No. M-8366 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-8366 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 31, 2011 Laburam and others .... PETITIONERS Vs. State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Kalendra under Section 182 IPC registered vide Case No. 160 dated 05.03.2008 titled as Harbhajan Singh Pannu, DSP (Vigilance) Unit-I, Ludhiana vs. Labhu Ram and others (Annexure P-2) and order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-3), whereby the notice has been issued to the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners submitted a complaint dated 15.07.2006 against Sh. Beant Singh, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Focal Point, Madinpur (Annexure P-1). This complaint was addressed to the Registrar, Cooperative CRM No. M-8366 of 2010 2 Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and copies thereof were sent to the various authorities including the Director Vigilance, Punjab (Chandigarh). The Director Vigilance, Punjab (Chandigarh) down-marked the case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Zone Jalandhar, who further marked it to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana Range, who sent it to the Superintendent of Police and then, ultimately the matter was enquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit-I, Ludhiana. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners resiled and it was stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties and, therefore, they do not want to pursue the matter against Sh. Beant Singh, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Focal Point, Madinpur. The report was accordingly submitted and it was recommended that the case be filed. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Zone Jalandhar, did not accept the same and vide his letter dated 29.11.2007, ordered to take action against the petitioners under Section 182 IPC and accordingly, the present Kalandra was filed against the petitioners by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit-I, Ludhaina. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that proceedings under Section 182 IPC can only be initiated by the authorities, to whom the complaint had been made. In the present case, the complaint was although addressed to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies but a copy thereof was sent to the Director Vigilance, Punjab (Chandigarh) and, therefore, the competent authority for initiating proceedings under Section 182 IPC would be the Director Vigilance alone. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.D.Lakhani and another vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 838. CRM No. M-8366 of 2010 3 On this basis, prayer has been made for quashing of the Kalandra submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police against the petitioners and the consequential order of notice issued to the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Further reliance has been placed on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Dr. Sham Lal Thukral vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 168 and Vipin Kumar Khurana vs. Manjit Kaur, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 515. On the other hand, counsel for the State has submitted that the proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been rightly initiated against the petitioners as on the basis of the statements made by them before the Enquiry Officer, it was clearly made out that the complaint has been filed by them without any basis and the same was false. His further contention is that the competent authority to file the complaint was the Deputy Superintendent of Police as he was instructed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Zone Jalandhar vide his order dated 29.11.2007. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present petition as being without any basis. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, are not in dispute, according to which, a copy of the complaint was also referred to the Director Vigilance, Punjab (Chandigarh) by the petitioners, where, in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, the petitioners have not come forward to support their complaint, which had been submitted against Sh. Beant Singh, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Focal Point, Madinpur. CRM No. M-8366 of 2010 4 It is not in dispute that the matter was not addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police nor are the proceedings initiated by him but have been initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit-I, Ludhaina, who, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as the competent authority to initiate action when seen in the light of Section 195 Cr.P.C.. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.D.Lakhani and another (supra), wherein the complaint was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who had referred to the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Detective Branch to enquire into the matter, which report was received by him and thereafter, he had instructed the Station House Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC, who did the same and the Court proceeded to quash the same by holding that the competent authority, in such a matter, would be only the authority, to which the complaint has been addressed to. The appropriate complaint would only be filed by a public servant concerned or a superior officer and not by an inferior officer as in the case in hand. This Court has also in the cases of Dr. Sham Lal Thukral (supra) and Vipin Kumar Khurana (supra) laid down the same proposition. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Kalendra under Section 182 IPC registered vide Case No. 160 dated 05.03.2008 titled as Harbhajan Singh Pannu, DSP (Vigilance) Unit-I, Ludhiana vs. Labhu Ram and others (Annexure P-2) and order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) October 31, 2011 JUDGE pj