IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 8925 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Harjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the applicant. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner seeks quashing of Calendra dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure P-2), which was submitted by SHO, Police Station Beas, District Amritsar. The same is statedly pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala. The petitioner had lodged a complaint on 21.10.2008 regarding theft of his car with Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural). His complaint was marked to SHO, Police Station Beas by SSP, Amritsar (Rural), on the basis of which FIR No. 203 dated 23.10.2008 was registered against Pawandeep Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of village Nangal Shama, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. During the investigation of this FIR, the car was taken in possession under Section 102 Cr.P.C. Sh. Pawandeep Singh could not produce any document of title though he had taken time in this regard. Ultimately, the allegations made in the FIR were found to be false, which the petitioner would claim to be on account of some political pressure. Criminal Misc. No. M- 8925 of 2010 -2- Be that as it may, the SHO, Police Station Beas submitted calendra on 03.07.2009 under Section 182 IPC, for which the petitioner has been summoned. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this petition to seek quashing of the said calendra. The main submission, in support of the contention, is on the basis of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 195 (a) (i) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on a complaint in writing of a public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Since this complaint was filed to Senior Superintendent of Police, (Rural) Amritsar, the complaint under Section 182 IPC could have been filed either by SSP, (Rural) Amritsar or any other authority to whom he was subordinate. Concededly, this complaint was filed by SHO, Police Station Beas. The cognizance taken by the court, thus, appears to be in violation of the statutory provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.. In support, reference can be made to P.D. Lakhani & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 2008 Supreme Court Weekly 3357, Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (2) RCR (Criminal) 10, Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206, Randhir Vs. The State of Haryana and others 2004 Cri.L.J. 479 and Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 1991 (3) RCR (Criminal) 113. The present complaint, accordingly, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. However, the prosecution would be at liberty Criminal Misc. No. M- 8925 of 2010 -3- to move a fresh complaint by an officer, who is competent to file the complaint. November 30, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE