IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.669 of 2008 Date of Decision 22.01.2010 Hari Kishan ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Parampal Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This is a revision petition against the order dated 14.09.2007, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, framing notice of accusation against the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, levelling allegations against respondent No.2 Om Singh and the said application was forwarded to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi for taking action against respondent No.2. During the inquiry, the complaint was found to be false. Sadhu Ram SHO, Police Station Narnaud filed a kalandra against the petitioner on 25.07.2005 under Section 182 IPC alleging that the petitioner had given false information. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate issued notice of accusation on the said kalandra on 14.09.2007. The notice of accusation has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the complaint would be filed only by the person before whom he had presented such complaint. In this regard, he has referred me to the judgment delivered in case Vinod Kumar versus State of Haryana 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 323 wherein it was observed that the complaint against the Criminal Revision No.669 of 2008 -2- petitioner should have been lodged either by the Deputy Commissioner before whom the complaint was filed or by any officer who is superior to him. To the contrary, Kalandra in this case has been lodged only by the SHO, who is not superior to the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment delivered in case Sardari Lal versus State of Punjab 1992 (2) RCR 13, which supports the contention of the petitioner. Even otherwise Section 195 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the filing of the complaint, reads as under:- “No Court shall take cognizance:- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC (45 of 1860) or; (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or' (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.” Now the present complaint was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, which was found to be false, therefore, it would only Deputy Commissioner or his superior to institute the prosecution under Section 182 IPC. The complaint filed by SHO in this manner is in contravention of the provisions of Section 195 (1)(a) of the Code. As such, the order issuing notice of accusation as well is rendered illegal, requiring interference at my end. Resultantly, I accept this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 14.09.2007, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.01.2010 mamta-II