Criminal Misc. No. M- 14160 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 14160 of 2010 Date of decision:-05.4.2011 Satnam Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Petitioners Satnam Kaur and Jagdeep Singh have sought quashing of Kalendra under Sections 182 and 120-B IPC dated 27.9.2007 and all subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of Kalendra, sent by Police Station Koom Kalan, District Khanna. The petitioners in the present case allege that on 12.5.2006 when they were going to Village Pattran District Ropar in their Tata Indica car, all the accused namely Rajesh Kumar son of Raj Kumar, Amarjit son of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Rajinder Kumar @ Kala and Manga sons of Niranjan Dass came in a blue colour jeep and attacked the complainant and her husband. They received injuries while accused Rajesh Kumar snatched Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners escaped in their car. The matter was reported to the police, the petitioners were taken to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. An application was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana for registration of a case. No action was taken by the police. The petitioners filed a complaint to the Court of Judicial Criminal Misc. No. M- 14160 of 2010 -2- Magistrate, Ludhiana. Vide complaint No.59 dated 05.7.2006, all the accused have been summoned vide order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P-2). The police has filed a kalendra vide report No.28 dated 27.9.2007 under Sections 182 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P-3). The charges have been framed vide order dated 05.5.2010 (Annexure P-4). The revision petition against the order dated 5.5.2010 has been dismissed vide order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana (Annexure P-5). The revision petition has been dismissed on the ground that even though no FIR was registered but the police had recorded a DDR No.28 dated 27.9.2007 against the complainant. On the basis of DDR, investigation was carried out and it was found that the incident narrated by Satnam Kaur was false. For registration of Kalendra under Section 182 IPC recording of DDR is sufficient and after due investigation statement made by Satnam Kaur was found false. Counsel for the respondent-State Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab has argued that after lodging of DDR an investigation was carried out and about 16 different persons of the locality were joined, who stated that the alleged occurrence had not taken place and the entire story is concocted. Petitioner No.2 had caused injuries to petitioner No.1 in order to falsify implicate his opponents, who have got registered a case FIR No.39 dated 27.5.2004 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Koom Kalan against petitioner No.2. Initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC are not liable to be quashed. The petitioners have made an application before the learned Magistrate for clubbing the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC with the complaint filed by the petitioners and not to proceed with the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC till the decision of the complaint. Admittedly, in the private complaint, filed by the petitioners, the accused have been summoned to face the trial vide order dated 29.3.2007 Criminal Misc. No. M- 14160 of 2010 -3- (Annexure P-2). Reference is being made by Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate counsel for the petitioners to the decision of this Court in Banta Singh versus State of Haryana 1995(3) RCR 133 and Ramesh Chand versus State of Haryana 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 718 to contend that after the accused have been summoned by the Magistrate in complaint, proceedings initiated under Section 182 IPC are an abuse of process of the Court and are liable to be quashed. Reference has been made to a decision in State of Punjab versus Brij Lal Palta AIR 1969 Supreme Court 355 in which the Supreme Court was seized of a similar matter to the one in hand. It was held that once a complaint filed by the informant, which is based on the same facts and allegations on which the first information was registered, is being proceeded with, it is not open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 211 Indian Penal Code. It was further held that although Section 182 IPC is distinct from the offence under Section 211, the latter is a more serious offence and may include the offence under the former section. It is apparent tht if the case under Section 182 IPC is allowed to proceed a decision in the said case would tantamount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 IPC during the pendency of his complaint, is evidently an abuse of the process of the Court and it would be but proper to secure the ends of justice to quash these proceedings. In Ramesh Chand versus State of Haryana (supra) similar view has been followed by this Court that in the private complaint filed by the petitioner, the accused have been summoned, though they were found innocent by the police in the FIR and keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law, at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR are false. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the police against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC are liable to be quashed. In Banta Singh versus State Criminal Misc. No. M- 14160 of 2010 -4- of Haryana (supra) it is held that the proceedings initiated under Section 182 Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed when on a complaint filed by the complainant, the Magistrate has issued summoning orders to the accused. If in the investigation of an FIR, the accused were found innocent and subsequently in a private complaint, filed by the complainant, the accused are summoned by the Magistrate, then the proceedings initiated under Section 182 Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the kalendra submitted by the police against the petitioners under Sections 182 and 120-B IPC dated 27.9.2007 is quashed with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is disposed of accordingly. April 05, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE