Jaspreet Kaur vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3762 Del

 *                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Criminal M.C. No.74 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. No.271 of 2010

%                                                                              12.08.2010

         JASPREET KAUR                                             ...... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Ritesh Bahri & Mr. Vinay Gupta,
                                                 Advocates.

                                            Versus
         STATE                                                     ......Respondent
                                        Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State.

                                                            Reserved on: 10th August, 2010
                                                          Pronounced on: 12th August, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?     Yes.
2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                                    Yes.
3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                            Yes.

                                       JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC by the police

on the ground that provisions under Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. were not complied with.

2. The petitioner had made a complaint to SHO on 5th May, 2004 that her husband

Sh. Parmeet Singh Narula on that day had destroyed her passport. On investigation this

complaint was found to be false as on the basis of same passport which she claimed to

have been destroyed, she applied for visa to Australian Embassy and also applied for her

permanent residence in Australia in the year 2005-2006. After finding the complaint

made by the petitioner to be a false complaint, Sub-Inspector Ishwar Singh sent a report

under Section 182 IPC to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for initiating

action against the petitioner and also requested that his report should be treated as a

compliant under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that this report/complaint sent to learned

Metropolitan Magistrate was liable to be quashed since it was sent in violation of

provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 195 Cr.P.C. requires that the court shall take

cognizance of an offence under Sections 172 to 188 only if a complaint is made in writing

by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is

administratively sub-ordinate. It is submitted that the complaint was made by

Smt. Jaspreet Kaur to SHO and as per Section 195 Cr.P.C., only SHO or an officer to

whom SHO was sub-ordinate could have filed a complaint before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate and not by an officer junior to SHO.

4. I am in agreement with the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner.

Recently, the Supreme Court in P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.; (2008) 5

SCC 150 had observed that when a complaint is not made by the appropriate public

servant, the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since in this case

the appropriate public servant who could have made the complaint was either SHO or an

officer to whom SHO was sub-ordinate, but the complaint was made by Sub-Inspector, I

consider that taking cognizance of this complaint by Metropolitan Magistrate was barred

under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

5. The petition is, therefore, allowed and complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate

is quashed because of bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA [JUDGE] AUGUST 12, 2010 'AA'