Ajit Singh, Lambardar vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed by Ajit Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of Calendra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code filed by Officer Incharge Police Station, Mallanwala and all subsequent proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira. 2. It is alleged that petitioner and his son Kashmir Singh besides grandson Amar Singh were implicated in a case under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.1994 and was released on bail only on 2.2.1995. While the petitioner was in detention, one Santa Singh had put in an application pleading that petitioner was a witness on a report made by Kanungo against Surinder Pal, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Mallanwala. The said Surinder Pal is instrumental for registration of false case against the petitioner and others. An enquiry was conducted on that complaint and finding the allegations to be incorrect, a Calendra has been presented for the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner claims that the same is illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court. According to him the complaint/Calendra could be filed by Senior Superintendent of Police to whom the complaint was made. In any case it is contended that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others are pending and it is to be adjudicated if it is true or false. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, the petitioner could not be prosecuted. 4. In the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police it has been pointed that an application had been filed making allegations against the Officer Incharge, Police Station, Mallanwala. It was signed by Santa Singh. However, it was moved on behalf of the petitioner also. Admittedly, the petitioner had not signed the application. It was denied that there was any ground for quashing the proceedings. 5. It is not belong disputed that the said application was filed not by the petitioner. The application which is alleged to be containing the information to be false was filed by the other person. Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code reads : "182. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given, were known by him, or;(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person;shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/, or both."Perusal of the aforesaid would show that whoever gives that false information which he knows or believes to be false and satisfying the particulars of Section 182 IPC, can been punished for the said offence. The person who can be prosecuted is the one who gives information which he knows or believes to be false. The petitioner had not given the said information. On the relevant date, he was confined to jail. There is nothing to indicate that he has authorised the said person to give the information. Therefore, patently he could not be prosecuted. 6. There is another way of looking at the matter. The petitioner claims that he has falsely been implicated and being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The said proceedings are pending. It has yet to be determined if those proceedings have been initiated on basis of correct facts or not. It is herein that it would be decided that if petitioner was falsely implicated and if so at the instance of whom ? Parellel proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC, therefore, would not be justified. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Banta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR 133. In paragraph 3, the court held :

"It is apparent that if the case under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, is allowed to proceed, a decision in the said case would tantamount to prejudging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 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. It is ordered accordingly."

The position herein is identical and there is no ground to take a different view. In these circumstances therefore, it must follow that the calendra under Section 182 IPC deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, Calendra under Section 182 IPC and the subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed.