Harbans Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

The sole controversy involved in this petition is whether under the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala was competent to file the complaint for an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code or that the Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali was also competent to do so.

The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Harbans Singh petitioner moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, contending that his daughter Harvinder Kaur was married with Varinder Singh Sethi S/o Tarlok Singh Sethi, Patiala, about 31/2 years ago, and she was blessed with a daughter named Silky. Varinder Singh and inlaws of Harvinder Kaur, namely, Trilok Chand and Uttam Kaur tortured her for having brought less dowry. He also alleged that Harvinder Kaur was turned out of her inlaws'' house after giving her beatings in order to compel her to fetch Rs. 10,000/ from her father i.e. Harbans Singh. Ultimately on 26188 Harbans Singh learnt from his relation Shri Gurmukh Singh of Patiala that Harvinder Kaur alongwith her daughter has gone to Sunam to her parents'' house on 221088. Harbans Singh enquired about the whereabouts of Harvinder Kaur from his soninlaw and the parents but as they failed to give any satisfactory reply, Harbans Singh filed a complaint before the Senior Supdt. of Police for registration of case for offence under Section 498A, 364/34 IPC. On that basis of this complaint, the formal FIR was registered vide No. 187 at Kotwali, Patiala on 281088. During the investigation of the case it was found that the above referred allegations levelled by Harbans Singh in the complaint/FIR, were false as the investigating officer found that Harvinder Kaur had gone to Manikaran Gurdwara and informed her parents on 24th October, 1988 in this regard. The FIR was thus got cancelled. The Sub Inspector then filed calender/complaint against Harbans Singh for offence under section 182 of IPC. The trial Court on the basis of the calender Annexure P1 finding a prima facie case against Harbans Singh for the abovereferred offence issued the show cause notice vide order dated 13989 Annexure P2. Harbans Singh, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The trial Court then adjourned the case for recording evidence. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the petitioner had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the calender dated 81288, cancellation report dated 251188 and the proceedings resulting therefrom.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to turn up despite this case being called several times, as such there is no option but to dispose of this case at 3. 15 P. M after hearing Mr. G. S. Cheema, learned AAG (Punjab) and perusing the record. In the case in hand the complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 187 was registered on 281088 at Police Station Kotwali Patiala was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police Patiala. Thus, in other words, it can be well said that it was under the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala that the said case was registered for offence under Sections 498A and 364/34 against Virender Singh and others. It can also be inferred that the alleged false informations was given by Harbans Singh present petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. If that is so, than according to the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court could have taken cognizance only on the complaint in writing of the Senior Superintendent of Police. Patiala or some other superior Officer to whom he is administratively subordinate. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Sub Inspector H. P. Singh SHO of Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala, who had filed the Kalendra annexure P1 against Harbans Singh petitioner for an offence under Section 182 IPC, is competent to do the same. If that is so then the impugned order of the trial Court taking cognizance of offence under Section 182 IPC against the accusedpetitioner being violative of mandatory provision of Section 195(1) of the Code is not sustainable.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no option but to quash the Kalender/complaint Annexure P. 1 as well as the order of summoning annexure P2 of trial Court and the proceedings resulting therefrom as the continuation of the same would certainly result in the abuse of process of law by accepting this petition. It is ordered accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.