Crl. Misc. No. M-9426 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9426 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.8.2011 Pritpal Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Calendra under Section 182 IPC filed by respondent No.3 in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint, Annexure P-1 was lodged by the petitioner alleging that on 27th September, 2008, when the petitioner was proceeding to her village after attending hearing of the case, she was accosted by Manjeet Kaur and Jitwant Singh whereafter they abused and threatened to kill her. According to counsel, said complaint was found to be false and proceedings under Section 182 IPC were initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment reported as Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418 to contend that complaint was made to the Dy. Superintendent of Police but proceedings were launched by SHO under Crl. Misc. No. M-9426 of 2010 2 Section 182 IPC, thus, same are liable to be quashed being not in accordance with law. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR. He, however, does not dispute the ratio of the judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against Jitwant Singh and Manjeet Kaur for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC. Hearing of the said case was fixed in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak on 27th September, 2008. According to the allegations, when the petitioner was proceeding to her village after attending hearing of the said case, she was accosted by Manjeet Kaur and Jitwant Singh. They abused and threatened to kill her. The said complaint was made to Dy. Superintendent of Police, Moonak. It was inquired into by Head Constable Jagjit Singh. The allegations in the complaint were found to be false. Consequently, proceedings under Section 182 IPC were launched against the petitioner by SHO, Moonak. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), it has been held as follows:- “In view of my above discussion on the issue regarding the competence of the person to present calendra before the Court being clear, in the present case, the calendra having been presented by S.H.O., Police Station Mahilpur, is incompetent as the complaint was not made to Crl. Misc. No. M-9426 of 2010 3 him but was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar.” In the light of the judgment aforesaid, it appears that the S.H.O. was not competent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner as complaint was made to Dy. Superintendent of Police, Moonak. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the complaint under Section 182 IPC and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 25.8.2011 'rajpal'