IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.6105-M of 2007 Date of decision: 7 th April, 2010 Malkiat Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Calendra No.70 dated 12.10.2006 and Calendra No.78 dated 03.11.2006 under Section 182 IPC instituted and pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri. A perusal of Calendra No.70 (Annexure P-1) reveals that the complainant had filed an application against Nirmal Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Jasbir Kaur, all residents of village Burajsedha, Tehsil Dhuri and against Gurmukh Singh and Bhagwan Singh, both residents of village Tunga, Tehsil Nabha under Sections 452, 427, 506 and 34 IPC. The inquiry of this case was conducted by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Sangrur, who recorded the statement of the villagers and the complainant petitioner, and came to the conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint were not made out, therefore, the proceedings Criminal Misc. No.6105-M of 2007 under Section 182 IPC be initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner is facing prosecution in a cross-case. Calendra No.78 on the same set of allegations was submitted, as it was stated that an inquiry was held by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhuri. The complainant had not appeared there however, the version projected by her was found to be false. Case of the petitioner is that on the same set of allegations, which have been found not true by the police, petitioner has filed a complaint (Annexure P-4). It is further submitted that the petitioner led preliminary evidence and the accused have been summoned to stand trial vide summoning order (Annexure P-5). It is stated that the allegations leveled by the petitioner were found worth credence by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri to initiate proceedings against the accused. Therefore, the opinion formulated by the Judicial Magistrate is to be given precedence over the one formulated by the Superintendent of Police (Detective) and the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Calendra No.70 (Annexure P-1) was submitted on 15 th September, 2006, whereas Calendra No.78 (Annexure P-2) was submitted on 13 th September, 2006 on the same set of allegations. Section 182 IPC prescribes maximum imprisonment for a period of six months or fine, which may extend to Rs.1000/-. The incident, regarding which the petitioner had made a complaint, also pertains to the year 2006. It is stated that the complaint (Annexure P-4) instituted by the petitioner is still pending and the trial is continuing. Section 182 falls in Chapter-X of the Indian Penal Code, which contains heading ‘OF CONTEMPTS OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS’. Therefore, Section 182 IPC is not only for redressal of the injury to the complainant but also pertains to causing annoyance to a public servant. These proceedings 2 Criminal Misc. No.6105-M of 2007 cannot carry on for the purpose of satisfying revenge or vengeance on the part of a private respondent. Therefore, taking the overall, larger view, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC, emanating from Calendra No.70 (Annexure P-1) and Calendra No.78 (Annexure P-2), are quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 7, 2010 rps 3