CRM No.M-7403 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-7403 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 18.07.2011 Poonam Nagpal .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Rajesh Narang, Advocate, and Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.B.S. Teji, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** MAHESH GROVER J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) praying for quashing of Kalendra dated 15.10.2009 under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-5) registered at the behest of Station House Officer, Hoshiarpur. The facts of the case are that the petitioner made a complaint to the Director General of Police alleging that her husband- respondent No.2 had illicit relations with a lady and this complaint was marked to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur who further marked the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur who CRM No.M-7403 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: inquired into the matter and found it to be incorrect. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner moved an application against his wife-petitioner whereupon SI Lakhvir Singh, SHO, Hoshiarpur filed a Kalendra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The sole point which has been raised in the petition is that SI Lakhvir Singh, who is the Station House Officer, Hoshiarpur, has filed a Kalendra and in view of the provisions of Section 182 of IPC, is not the competent authority to file the same. Section 182 of the IPC is reproduced hereunder:- "False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person: Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--- (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both". It is clear that the complaint i.e. Kalendra can be initiated by the public servant/officer to whom such false information is given with intent to use his lawful power to cause injury to the other person. In the instant case, the complaint was submitted to the CRM No.M-7403 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: Director General of Police who got the inquiry conducted from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In such a condition, even if the principle of law is stretched to say that the Director General of Police not being the competent authority could not have himself examined the issue so as to ultimately lodge a Kalendra against the petitioner in the event all the allegations being found to be incorrect, then also the complaint was referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to look into the matter and thus, the SHO presenting the Kalendra was incompetent to do so in view of the provisions laid down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of the fact that the complaint was never made to him in the original capacity. This Court in Dr.Sham Lal Thukral versus State of Punjab, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 168 in similar circumstances quashed the Kalendra where the report had been submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Kalendra had been filed by the SHO. Similarly, in P.D. Lakhani and another versus State of Punjab and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 838, it was observed as follows:- "No complaint, therefore, could be lodged before the learned Magistrate by the Station House Officer. Even assuming that the same was done under the directions of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jallandhar, Section 195, in no uncertain terms, directs filing of an appropriate complaint petition only by the public servant concerned or his superior officer. It, therefore, cannot be done by an inferior officer. It does not provide for delegation of the function of the public servant concerned. We may notice that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 340 of the Code, a complaint may be signed by such an officer as the High Court may CRM No.M-7403 of 2010 (O & M) ::4:: appoint if the complaint is made by the High Court. But in all other cases, the same is to be done by the presiding officer of the court or by such officer of the court as it may authorize in writing in this behalf. Legislature, thus, wherever thought necessary to empower a court or public servant to delegate his power, made provisions therefor. As the statute does not contemplate delegation of his power by the Senior Superintendent of Police, we cannot assume that there exists such a provision. A power to delegate, when a complete bar is created, must be express; it being not an incidental power." Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be accepted. Ordered accordingly. The Kalendra dated 15.10.2009 under Section 182 IPC (Annexure P-5) is ordered to be quashed. (MAHESH GROVER) July 18, 2011 JUDGE Sukhpreet