CRM No.M-13734 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-13734 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 28.09.2011 Kamlesh Kumari & others. ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.R.S.Atwal, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** Augustine George Masih J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the Kalendra dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure P1) submitted under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code for initiating proceedings thereunder and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.3, Harpreet Singh reported the matter to the police and on that basis, FIR No. 42 dated 01.04.2002 was registered at Police Station Balachaur under Sections 323/ 379/ 34 Indian Penal Code. When no action was taken by the police on the said FIR, petitioner No.3, Harpreet Singh proceeded to file a criminal complaint No. 175/1 CRM No.M-13734 of 2010 2 of 2003 dated 28.11.2003. In the said complaint, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawanshahar took cognizance of the same and on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, proceeded to summon both the accused, viz., Sohan Lal and Kuldeep Singh. During the trial, as Kuldeep Singh did not come present despite coercive steps taken by the Court, he was declared proclaimed offender. However, Sohan Lal faced trial. The complaint was finally decided by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawanshahar vide order dated 18.05.2009 (Annexure P2) vide which, Sohan Lal was acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. After this had happened, an application was filed by Sohan Lal to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Nawanshahar dated 16.10.2009 praying for initiation of proceedings under Section 182 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had got registered FIR No. 42 dated 01.04.2002 against him falsely and by distortion of facts and by making false statements. This was looked into, and thereafter, proceedings under Section 182 Indian Penal Code was sought to be initiated by filing the Kalendra, which is impugned in the present case. He contends that firstly, no action can be initiated on the basis of the said report as the offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. The cancellation report, as is alleged to have been prepared by the investigating agency after investigation of FIR No.42 dated 01.04.2002 got CRM No.M-13734 of 2010 3 registered by the petitioner No.3, was never submitted to the Court nor had been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawanshahar. In these facts and circumstances of the case, offence, as alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, is not made out. That apart, in the criminal complaint filed by petitioner No.3, Harpreet Singh, after trial Sohan Lal was given benefit of doubt and there was no finding recorded that the allegations leveled against Sohan Lal was false. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the Kalendra and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submits on instructions from SI Sohan Lal, Police Station Balachaur who is present in the Court, that the FIR was investigated into by the police and finding no substance therein, a cancellation report was prepared. He could not dispute the fact that no report in this regard was submitted to the Court as mandated in the Criminal Procedure Code. However, his contention is that even in the criminal complaint filed by petitioner No. 3, Harpreet Singh, Sohan Lal stood acquitted by the Court which itself shows that the allegations made by petitioner No. 3 which were supported by petitioners No. 1 & 2 before the trial Court were false, and therefore, offence under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code is clearly made out and accordingly, the Kalendra was submitted against the petitioners. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. CRM No.M-13734 of 2010 4 The facts, as stated by the counsel for the petitioners, are not in dispute. FIR No. 42 dated 01.04.2002 registered against petitioner No.3, Harpreet Singh was found to be without any substance and a cancellation report was prepared by the police. The same was required to be produced before the Court. The investigating agency cannot, on its own, cancel the FIR; it only has to prepare a report and submit it to the Magistrate. Unless the said report is accepted by the Court, on serving notice to the complainant and hearing the complaint, if he appears to contest the cancellation report, the FIR cannot be said to have been cancelled. Section 182 of Indian Penal Code mandates initiation of proceedings when false information is given to a public servant with an intention to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury of an other person. Proceedings cannot be initiated merely because the police has prepared a report which has not even been presented before the Magistrate. That apart, in a criminal complaint which was filed by petitioner No.3, the Court had taken cognizance, and thereafter, on the preliminary evidence led by him, had proceeded to not only summon the accused but also after framing the charge and holding a trial, acquitted Sohan Lal, one of the accused by giving him benefit of doubt. There is no finding recorded by the Court in its judgment dated 18.05.2009 (Annexure P-2) that the allegations made by petitioner No. 3 in his complaint were false or that such an incident had not occurred rather benefit of doubt had been given to Sohan Lal. It would not be out of CRM No.M-13734 of 2010 5 way to mention here that Kuldeep Singh, the co-accused did not face trial and was declared proclaimed offender. No offence qua this also is made out under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. Kalendra under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 28.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) sailesh JUDGE