Naresh Talwar vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition in this court for quashing of the police calandra under Section 182 of he Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, against the petitioner for lodging a false complaint with an intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. This complaint under Section 182 IPC has arisen from a report alleged to have been lodged for theft by the complainant with the police and the police on investigation of the case, after the case was registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. proceeded in the matter and found that the report lodged by the complainant was false and frivolous and it was only moved with an intent to make the police to swing into action and cause injury to some body else. After the police completed the investigation into the matter and found that no evidence was available to corroborate the version made in the F.I.R. formed the opinion for cancellation of the case.

The police after completion of the investigation produced the case diaries before the Magistrate, for cancellation of the case, wherein it was contended that a false report appeared to have been lodged by the complainant with the police. The Magistrate after perusal of the case diaries passed the following order :

"Police diary pursued. I do agree with the report of S.S.P., Amritsar. Case be filed and papers be returned to the S.S.P. Amritsar."

This shows that the Magistrate has given the certificate and verified the investigation conducted by the police and found that no case was made out against any of the accused and the complainant had made this complaint unnecessarily to use the services of the public servant with an intent to cause injury to some body else. The police, therefore, were empowered to lodge a complaint against the complainant under Section 182 of the Penal Code before a competent Court of law which they have done. The petitioner is before a competent court of law and he can raise his defence before the Magistrate. There is no provision of law that any hearing was required to be given to the petitioner before a complaint was lodged with the Magistrate because the investigation conducted by the police, has been approved by the Magistrate and the case diaries have been consigned to the records.

The petitioner is at liberty to take any defence before the Magistrate during the trial of the case and the Magistrate is at liberty to consider the matter on the facts of the case and legalities, to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

No illegality or impropriety has been committed in lodging the complaint against the petitioner by the State. Hence, this petition fails and is dismissed as such.