Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

Pawan Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings which were initiated on the basis of a calendra bearing No. 435/1 of 1991 State v. Pawan Kumar and the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal on 28.10.1992, Annexure P.4.

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a Press Reporter of ''Punjab Kesari'' and ''Dainik Tribune'' that he published news item about the misdeeds of Sh. Niranjan Lal in his newspaper and that Niranjan Lal threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. According to the petitioner he was threatened twice or thrice on telephone and he made a complaint in writing through registered letter to the Deputy Commissioner. Copy of the complaint is Annexure P.1.

A copy of the complaint was received through registered post in Police Post, Siwan and on the basis of the application, report No. 19 was recorded on 14.1.1988 by Sh. Rattan Singh, A.S.I. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Kaithal investigated the case and found that Pawan Kumar had given false information to the police. S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Kaithal proposed that action under Section 182, Indian Penal Code be taken against Pawan Kumar. On the recommendation of the Inspector, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Kaithal, Calendra under Section 182, Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the calendra Annexure P3 and order Annexure P4 are liable to be quashed because calendra was filed by the incompetent authority and the complaint could only be filed by the Deputy Commissioner to whom a complaint dated 13.12.88 was made by the petitioner or an officer superior to the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged under Section 195(1) Criminal Procedure Code.

Notice of this petition was given and reply has been filed on behalf of InspectorManohar Lal S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Kaithal. It has been stated in para 2 of the reply that on the basis of a complaint DDR No. 19 dated 14.12.1988 was recorded in police Post, Siwan, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Kaithal. It has been further mentioned in para 2 that Niranjan Lal son of Thakur Dass filed a complaint under Section 500/501, Indian Penal Code against Pawan Kumar for publishing the defamatory imputation in his papers and the same is pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal for 6.4.1993 for complainant''s evidence after the notice has been issued to Pawan Kumarpetitioner. It has been further stated that during the investigation, it was found that Niranjan Lal has never given threat of dire consequences to the petitioner and as such the information given in writing to the incharge police post was found false and resultantly the calendra under Section 182 Indian Penal Code was made and proceedings were initiated. In para 3 of the reply, the contents of para 3 of the petition have been denied. It is further mentioned in reply that it is totally wrong that the application (complaint), Annexure P1, was only given to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, rather the information was given simultaneously to the persons named in the application itself including the Incharge, Police Post, Siwan. It is further mentioned that complaint dated 13.12.1988 was received in Police Post on 14.12.1988 through registered post and a report at serial No. 19 was duly entered in the daily diary of the Police Post on the same day and the investigation was taken up by Sh. Rattan Singh, the then A.S.I. Incharge, Police Post, Siwan. It is further mentioned in para 3 of the reply that though the different authorities/officers mentioned in the said complaint, sent the complaint in question for necessary action after 14.12.1988 yet by then the investigation had already been started vide report No. 19 dated 14.12.1988 in daily diary of Police Post, Siwan. It is further mentioned that the complainant, Chand Ram, being the S.H.O., Officer Incharge of Police Station Sadar, Kaithal under whose jurisdiction the Police Post, Siwan falls was the public servant concerned to lodge the present complaint in his own right independently of other officers/authorities. It has been further stated in reply that the false information has been given to A.S.I. Incharge, Police Post, Siwan and the complaint has been filed by S.H.O. who is superior officer Incharge of Police Post, Siwan. It is further mentioned that the investigation was not taken up at the instance of Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra or any other superior officer rather the same was taken up independently by the then Incharge, Police Post, Siwan and calendra has been initiated at the instance of Sh. Chandgi Ram S.H.O. Incharge of Police Station Sadar, Kaithal in his own capacity being the Controlling Authority of the said Police Post and thus the provision of Section 195(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has fully been complied with and Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain and try the aforesaid calendra, Annexure P3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is settled law that the complaint on allegations of false information could be filed by the concerned public officer and the Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code on complaint in writing of the concerned public officer by virtue of provisions of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further contended that since the complaint was filed in writing before the Deputy Commissioner, Sh. Raj Kumar Verma so the complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code can be filed by the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer who is higher in rank to the Deputy Commissioner. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the authorities in State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355. Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1983(1) C.L.R. 719 : 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 540 and Davinder Singh Kapoor v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 149 : 1991(2) CCC 195 .

Mr. K.S. Godara, AAG, Haryana has contended that the false information had been given by the petitioner to A.S.I. Incharge, Police Post, Siwan and the complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code has been filed by the S.H.O., who is a superior officer and Incharge of the Police Post, Siwan. Mr. Godara has further contended that the investigation was not taken up at the instance of the learned Deputy Commissioner or any other superior officer, rather the same was taken up independently by the then Incharge, Police Post, Siwan vide DDR No. 19, dated 14.12.1988, that the calendra was initiated at the instance of Sh. Chandgi Ram, S.H.O. Incharge of Police Station Sadar, Kaithal, who is the controlling authority of Police Post, Siwan and that therefore, the complaint filed by Sh. Chandgi Ram under Section 182, Indian Penal Code is maintainable, the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been fully complained with and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal has the jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Sheo Prasad v. State, Opposite Party, AIR 1959 Allahabad 378.

Brij Lal Palta''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. It has been held by the Supreme Court that once a complaint filed by the informant which is based on the same facts and allegations on which the first information was registered, is being proceeded with it is not open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 211, Indian Penal Code unless there has been proper compliance with the provisions of Section 195.

Jarnail Singh''s case (supra) is also not applicable because in that case the complaint was addressed to S.S.P. whereas a complaint under Section 182 was filed by D.S.P., who was an officer subordinate to S.S.P.

Davinder Singh Kapoor''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case complaint on allegations of false information was addressed to S.S.P. and the same was entrusted to S.I., Om Parkash, Incharge of Police Station, Anandpur Sahib and, therefore, it was held that Om Parkash, S.I. was not competent to file a complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code.

In Sheo Prasad''s case (supra) it was held as under :

"Where false information regarding a demand of bribery made by a public servant supplied to the Chief Minister is sent for inquiry and that information is again repeated in the enquiry made by a SubDivisional Magistrate, the repeated information can be basis on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate can file a complaint against the informant for an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code ; the said Magistrate will under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code be the public servant concerned. The fact that the informant did not volunteer the information to the Sub Divisional Magistrate but was bound to answer the questions put to him is immaterial. For the informant was bound to tell the truth, but instead if he respects the false statement, the proceedings can be taken against him whether the statement had been made voluntarily or upon questions put to him."

In view of the above discussion, I hold that the complaint Annexure P1, made by the petitioner was received on 14.12.1988 through registered post in Police Post, Siwan and a report at serial No. 19 was duly entered in the daily diary of the Police Post on the same day and the investigation was taken up by Sh. Rattan Singh, the then A.S.I., Incharge Police Post Siwan. Through the complaint which was sent to different authorities/officers was also sent for necessary action after 14.12.88 but by then the investigation had already been started vide report No. 19 dated 14.12.88. Sh. Chandgi Ram, S.H.O., being Incharge of the Police Station Sadar, Kaithal under whose jurisdiction the Police Post, Siwan falls was the public servant concerned to lodge the present complaint in his own right independently. A report No. 8 was lodged by Sh. Niranjan Lal on 3.1.1989 in Police Station Sadar, Kaithal. S.H.O. investigated the matter. After investigation the S.H.O. came to the conclusion that Pawan Kumar, Journalist, wanted to fleece money from Niranjan Lal by blackmailing. S.H.O. has further mentioned in his report calendra, Annexure P2, under Section 182, Indian Penal Code that he did not find during investigation that any threat was given to the petitioner by Niranjan Lal. The application filed by the petitioner is totally wrong. Pawan Kumar has given false information and, therefore, S.H.O. recommended that the action under Section 182, Indian Penal Code be taken against the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.