Kavita Verma vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''Cr.P.C.'') has been filed for quashing of Kalandra u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'') (Annexure P2) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

The sole submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner levelling allegations against Rajan Chopra, Principal Sahibjada Ajit Singh Academy, Roopnagar, no FIR was registered and any investigation made by the investigating officer without registration of FIR is without jurisdiction and contrary to law, therefore, no proceedings u/s 182 IPC can be filed by the SHO even if the complaint filed by the petitioner was held to be false. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 10.

Counsel for respondent No. 3, on the contrary, contends that the petitioner submitted the application levelling allegations which she knew and believed to be false. It is further argued that in pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner, Rajan Chopra against whom accusations were made was called by the police and he submitted his reply vide application bearing No. 167/Peshi dated 26.03.2012 and 208/Dasti dated 01.04.2012 which find reference in the report dated 11.04.2012 whereby the SHO, Police Station City Roopnagar recommended initiation of proceedings u/s 182 IPC against Kavita Verma and her husband Avtar Krishan. It is further argued that observations made in Malkiat Singh''s case (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner were considered by this Court in Varinder Mohan Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein, it was held that giving of false information to the police cannot be ignored even if non-registration of the case has not caused injury or annoyance to any person.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Section 182 IPC being relevant for the present controversy is quoted for facility of reference:-

False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.--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 one thousand rupees, or with both.

A plain reading of the section makes it evident that there are two parts of Section 182 i.e. by such information furnished, public servant ought to have done or omitted to have done something relying upon such information or had used his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. In the case at hand, the police conducted an inquiry into the allegations brought forth by the petitioner and that too by calling the other person against whom she had levelled allegations. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the contentions of the petitioner that registration of an FIR on the basis of alleged false information is sine qua non for initiating proceedings u/s 182 IPC.

In Malkiat Singh''s case (supra), no doubt, in para 5 of the judgment, the Court by referring to the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. has held that the entire procedure adopted by the police officer is without jurisdiction and in utter violation of the provisions of the Code but the petition was allowed on the premise that the complaint was not filed by the Superintendent of Police to whom Malkiat Singh has submitted an application for action, the allegations whereof were held to be false but the complaint was filed by the SHO, an officer subordinate to the Superintendent of Police, thus, proceedings being hit by the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. However, nothing stated in this order shall prejudice the trial court at the time of final adjudication.