RAJESH BINDAL J - (1.) PRAYER in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the Calendra filed by S.H.O., Police Station Mahilpur under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner filed two applications to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar against respondent No. 2, which after investigation by the S.H.O., Mahilpur, were found to be false. Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, which was referred to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur for report, who in turn sent the same to the S.H.O Police Station Mahilpur, for investigation and report, which was further marked to Paramjit Singh for necessary action and report and ultimately the Calendra under the signatures of S.H.O. was filed before the learned Magistrate. This Calendra, is impugned in the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaints were made by the petitioner to the S.S.P., Hoshiarpur and D.I.G, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar. The calendra in the present case has been presented by the S.H.O., Police Station, Mahilpur, who is totally incompetent in view of settled position of law. He has referred to judgments of this Court in the case of Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab, 1992(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 13, Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 147 and D.S. Rawat v. State of Punjab, 2007(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 199. He further submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner against Satvir Singh under Sections 427/323/447/504/506 IPC is still pending before the learned Magistrate. Meaning thereby the issue as to whether the complaint filed by the petitioner to the police was fake, is yet to attain finality. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the application was filed to the Deputy Commissioner for initiating process against the petitioner for filing a false complaint and it was on his initiation, the calendra was presented and the same cannot be said to be filed by incompetent person.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book and the judgments referred to by them. This Court in Sardari Lal's case (supra) while dealing with an identical issue opined as under :- "It has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jarnail Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 540 : 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 719, that the complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police giving rise to the filing of a formal complaint under Section 182 of the Code could not be initiated by an officer subordinate to the rank of the Senior Superintendent of Police. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206, the apex Court had held that the offence under Section 182 of the Code is complete hen a person moved the public servant for action. Where a person reports to a Tehsildar to take action on averment of certain facts, believing that the Tehsildar would take some action upon it, and the facts alleged in the report are found to be false, it is incumbent, if the prosecution is to be launched, that the complaint in writing should be made, by the Tehsildar as the public servant concerned under Section 182, and not leave it to the police to put a charge- sheet. The trial under Section 182 of the Code without the Tehsildar's compliant in writing is, therefore, without jurisdiction ab initio." ;