Ishwar Singh vs State of Haryana and others

Manisha Batra, J

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (FOR SHORT ‘THE CODE’) seeking quashing of Calendra under Secttion 182 of the Indian Penal Code (FOR SHORT ‘IPC’), registered vide GD/DDR No. 16 dated 29.09.2022 (Annnexures P-4 & P-5), order dated 06.01.20233 (Annexure P-6), thereby issuinng notice to the petitioner and alll the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

Brief facts of the case relevannt for the purpose of disposal off the present petition are that the FIR bearing No. 387 dated 11.05.2018, had been registered on the complaint of the petitioner on 11.05.2018, wherein he had alleged thaat Puran Singh and his son Surennder Singh, residents of village Beed Majra, hadd extracted an amount of Rs. 155 Lakhs from him on the pretexxt of sending Ajay Kumar, nephew of the petiitioner abroad; but neither did they send him abroad nor refunded his money. A panchayat meeting was convened, wherein and also before the police, the above named Surender Singh and Puran Singh had assured to givve money of the petitioner back but failed to do so. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for taking action in the matter. Affter registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiatedd. A cancellatioon report was prepared that the allegations levelled in the FIR were found to be false and thereafter, Calenddra under Section 182 of IPC was prepared inn accordance with the recommenndation so made. A complaint under Section 1882 of IPC was filed by the SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Kaarnal against thee petitioner and notice was issuued to him. Feeling aggrieved from filing of the complaint/Calendra and passsing of the impugned order dated 06.01.20233, the present petition has been filed.

It is argued by learned counseel for the petitioner that the aforeesaid complaint//Calendra under Section 182 of IPC has been filed against the petitioner on 29.09.2022 i.e much afteer expiry of prescribed periodd of limitation of one year. It is further argueed that since the cancellation reeport had neither been filed nor it was accepted by the competent Court of law,, the filing of complaint under Section 182 of IPC against the petitioner was nothing but an abuse of process of laww. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned complaint/Calendra as well as the impugned order are liable to be quashed. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities cited as Shikha Kondalvs. State of Punjab : 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 594, Harbhajan Singgh Bajwa vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala and another : 2000 (3)) RCR (Criminal) 94, Jagraj Siingh vs. State of Punjab : 1993 (2) RCR (Crimminal) 633, Shiv Kumar Grover and another vss. State of Punjab : 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 57, Babita vs. State of Punjab : (P&H) 2008 (4) RCR (Crimminal) 516 and Bhatwat Singhh vs. Commissioner of Police and another : 1985 (2) SCC 537.

Respondent-State has filed reeply by way of affidavit submittting therein thaat on conducting thorough investigation in the aforesaid FIR No. 387 as got loddged by the present petitioner, it was found that the allegations levelled byy the petitioner were false and he had not been able to produce any corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegations. On finding the allegationss so levelled to be untrue, a cancellation report was preparedd on 12.08.20188. It is argued by learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, that the information given by the petitioner too the police had been found to be false and sinnce such information was shown to have been given with an intent to cause thhe police officials to use their lawful power to the injury of the persons named as accused therein, therefore, the petitioner had committed offence under Seection 182 of IPC and, therefore, it is urged that the aforesaid Calendra under Section 182 of IPC had rightly been prepared and filed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the fiiling of the Calendra as on 29.09.2022 was nott barred by limitation as it could be filed any time before finalization of the proceedings of cancellation repport. Therefore, it is urged that there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the material placed on record.

At the outset, it will be proffitable to refer to the provisions of Section 1882 of IPC, which are relevant for the purpose. The ingredients of this offence aree as under:

(i) the giving of false innformation,

(ii) to a public servant,

(iii) which the informannt knew or believed to be false and

(iv) which he gave in order to influence the public servant to behave in a way in which he ought not to behave iff the true state of facts were known to him.

Offence  under  Section  1882  of  IPC  is  punishable  with imprisonmment for a term which may extennd to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. Now so far as the limitation aspect is concerned, Section 468 of the Code mandates that no Court shall take cognizancee of offence beyond the period of limitation of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. The periodd of limitation for filing complaint/lodging of FIR for commissioon of offence unnder Section 182 of IPC starts from the date when the fact thatt the complaint was false comes within the knowledge of the police official concerned as observed in Habhajan Singgh Bajwa’s case (supra) and Jagraj Singh’s case (supra). In this case, as per version of the respondeents, cancellatioon report had been prepared onn 12.08.2018 and the fact that the complaint was false came within the knowledge of the police official concerned as on that date. However, it is noteworthy to say that that the cancellatioon report had not been presentedd before the Court concerned tilll the date of filing of this petition.

During the course of argument, it has been very fairly conceeded by learnedd State counsel that cancellatioon report has been filed before the Court of Magistrate concerned only on 01.07.2024 and now notice has been issued to the present petitioner. The well established proposition of law is that on filing of a cancellation report, the Judiccial Magistrate concerned can accept the same and drop the proceedings; or may order further investigation too be made by thhe police; or otherwise he has opption to take cognizance on the basis of materiaal presented before him and isssue process against the accusedd on filing prottest petition, if a view is taken by the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further. However, these options are yet to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned sinnce the cancellation report has been filed very recently and even the presence of the petitioner is to be securedd by the Magisstrate. A very valid questionn which automatically arises for consideration is if the Magistrate chooses to order for further investigation or to take coggnizance of the matter on the baasis of the material produced beefore him and to issue process against the accused of FIR No. 387, then what would be the fatte of proceedings under Sectioon 182 of IPC? In the considered opinion of this Court, in that eventuality, thhe proceedings under Section 1882 of IPC would be treated to be without juurisdiction and hence liable too be quashed. In support of this opinion, this Court relies upon Babita’s case (supra), wherein a cancellation report was prepared and presented in the Court of Illaquaa Magistrate. Objection was raised by the petitioner to the cancellatioon report and the matter was remmanded back for further cancellattion. It was obsserved by this Court that keeping in view the fact that the final opinion byy the Court with regard to falsity of the allegations levelled in the complaint made by the petitioner was yet to be given by the Court concerned, permitting the respondents to proceed withh the proceedings under Section 182 of IPC would amount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the petitioner and would alsoo amount to abuse of process off law. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Seection 182 of IPC were quashed. Reliance can also be placed upon Shikhha Kondal’s case (supra), wheerein similar observations were made. In view of the position of law as explained above, thoough it cannot be stated that the period of limitation for fiiling complaint under Section 182 of IPC had expired on the date when the Calendra was filed, however, nonethelesss in view of the fact that the final opinion by the Court concerned with regard to falsity of the allegations levelled in the complaint is yet to be givenn, the proceedings under Section 182 of IPC cannnot be stated to be sustainable.

As per the discussion made above and keeping in view the well settled prooposition of law, it is held that aforesaid complaint/Calendra, filed under Secction 182 of IPC, and the summoning order dated 06.01.2023, thereby suummoning the petitioner as well as the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed annd the impugned Calendra and order dated 06.01.2023 along with subsequent proceeding having arisen therefrom are quashed.