Ramesh Chand vs State of Haryana

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Petitioner Ramesh Chand has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the kalandra submitted by the police of Police Station Nissang, District Karnal, against him u/s 182 IPC and the consequent proceedings.

In this case, on a complaint made by the petitioner, FIR No. 31 dated 1.2.1999 was registered at Police Station Nissang u/s 379 IPC against Sona Devi and her son Balbir alias Dalbir. In the complaint, it was alleged that Smt. Sona Devi, the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Amunpur, with the help of certain persons have cut trees standing on the panchayat land. Subsequently, during the investigation, the police found the allegations to be false. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR was got cancelled. Thereafter, the police submitted impugned kalandra u/s 182 IPC against the petitioner for initiating proceeding against him for giving false information to the police.

It is the case of the petitioner that after cancellation of the aforesaid FIR, he filed a private complaint under Sections 379, 201, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against Sona Devi and others, wherein, after recording preliminary evidence, the trial Court has summoned the accused persons to face trial u/s 379 IPC. Copies of the complaint and the summoning order have been placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3. The said complaint is still pending. In view of this fact, counsel for the petitioner submits that once on the complaint filed by the petitioner on the same allegations, the accused have been summoned, the proceedings initiated against him by the police u/s 182 IPC for giving them false information are abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed.

Counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the filing of the private complaint by the petitioner against the accused on the similar allegations as well as the summoning of the accused in the said complaint by the trial Court. The pendency of the complaint is also not disputed.

This Court in Crl. Misc. No. 18769-M of 2005, decided on September 13, 2006, while following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gopal Vijay Verma Vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, and H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), and a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Munilal Thakur and Others etc. Vs. Nawal Kishore Thakur and Another etc., , has held that a Magistrate, even after accepting the final report after hearing the complainant, can still take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint on same or similar allegations of fact.

In view of the admitted facts that in the private complaint filed by the petitioner, the accused have been summoned, though they were found innocent by the police in the FIR and keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law, at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR are false. Therefore, in my opinion, the proceedings initiated by the police against the petitioner u/s 182 IPC are liable to be quashed.

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed. The kalandra submitted by the police of Police Station Nissang, District Karnal, against the petitioner u/s 182 IPC and the consequent proceedings are quashed.