Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pavittar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
CRM-M-14216-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CRM-M-14216-2023
Date of decision: 25th November, 2024
Pavittar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Meenu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Samra, AAG, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') seeking calendra/report No.
10 dated 27.10.2011 registered under Section 182 of IPC at Police Station
Fatehgarh, Panjtoor, order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga in the abovesaid calendra and all
the proceedings having arisen therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the
present petition are that the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing No. 20 dated
30.06.2011 registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 332, 323, 324, 506, 426
read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh, Panjtoor
alleging therein that he was a government teacher posted at Fateh Ulla Shah
Wale and he was assigned duty as Booth Level Officer by Voters
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
Registration Officer on 16.06.2011. To perform his duty, he had gone to the
house of Mahinder Singh resident of village Panjtoor to make inquires qua
preparation of new votes and for making correction in the voters list.
However, the said Mahinder Singh while proclaiming as to the authority of
the petitioner, made an exhortation on hearing which Jaswant Singh and
Ranjit Pal reached there and opened an assault upon the petitioner due to
which he sustained injuries. He raised alarm and was rescued by one Avtar
Singh. He prayed for taking action against the culprits. Investigation
proceedings were initiated. An inquiry was also conducted by an officer of
rank of DSP Dharamkot, who made recommendation for cancellation of the
FIR.
3. As further submitted, the cancellation report was presented
before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. The petitioner was not satisfied
with the report and filed a protest petition and then a private complaint. He
produced preliminary evidence, on the basis of which, process was issued
against the persons named as accused in the complaint for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 332, 333, 353 and 186 of IPC. The case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under the aforementioned
sections were framed. After conducting trial, the accused named therein
were acquitted of the charges as framed against them by the trial Court while
its judgment dated 26.04.2017. Appeal filed against the said judgment of
acquittal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2019.
4. It is further submitted by the petitioner that on 16.02.2021,
Ranjit Pal, one of accused of the aforementioned FIR moved an application
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga to file calendra under Section 182
of IPC. On 22.03.2021, an application was moved by SHO, PS Fategarh
Panjtoor along with certified copy of calendra dated 27.10.2011 before the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga for presentation of
calendra. The concerned Court, straightaway issued notice against the
petitioner in the said calendra. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has
been filed by the petitioner thereby challenging the calendra and the order
dated 22.03.2021.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned
Magistrate committed a mistake in taking cognizance of the offence under
Section 182 of IPC since the same had been become barred by law of
limitation as the calendra so submitted was dated 27.10.2011 but cognizance
thereon had been taken on 22.03.2021 i.e. after expiry of a period of 9½
years. It is further argued that since, the accused named in the FIR No. 20
had been summoned by the competent Court in the protest petition/private
complaint, were charge-sheeted and faced full fledged trial, therefore, the
petitioner could not be booked for giving false information to the police and
no proceedings under Section 182 of IPC could be initiated against him as
such proceedings were to be initiated only during the investigation of the
case.
6. It is further argued that the learned Magistrate while passing the
impugned order dated 22.03.2021 did not apply his judicious mind and
straightaway issued notice without considering the fact that the cognizance
of the offence could be taken or not? It is, therefore, argued that the calendra
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
in question as well as the order dated 22.03.2021 and the proceedings
initiated subsequent thereto are liable to be quashed and the petition deserves
to be allowed.
7. Respondent No.1-State has filed reply, submitting therein that
after completion of investigation in FIR No. 20, cancellation report was
prepared and a calendra under Section 182 of IPC was also prepared on
27.10.2011 vide DDR No. 10. The said calendra was presented on
22.03.2021 since after filing a cancellation report, protest petition and then
complaint had been filed and application for leave to appeal against the
judgment dated 26.04.2017 had also been filed before this Court which had
been dismissed on 18.10.2019. It is argued by learned State counsel that no
illegality or irregularity in passing of impugned order dated 22.03.2021 or
filing of the calendra under Section 182 of IPC. Therefore, it is urged that
the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Ranjit Pal Singh, who was named as one of the accused in FIR
No. 20 appeared and filed reply to the effect that the calendra under Section
182 of IPC was prepared vide DDR No. 10 dated 27.10.2011 against the
petitioner, when it was found during investigation that the allegations
levelled in the FIR No. 20 were false. Cancellation report was presented on
10.06.2012. Since the petitioner had filed a protest petition, therefore, the
said calendra was attached with the file of protest petition/complaint by the
Court and it was on dismissal of the complaint as filed by the petitioner and
acquittal of the persons named as accused therein, that the proceedings on
the calendra were initiated and the same were within the period of limitation
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
while controverting the pleas taken in the petition, dismissal of the same has
been prayed for.
9. At the outset, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions
of Section 182 of IPC, which are relevant for the purpose. The ingredients of
this offence are as under:
(i) The giving of false information,
(ii) to a public servant,
(iii) which the informant knew or believed to be false and
(iv) which he gave in order to influence the public
servant to behave in a way in which he ought not to behave if
the true state of facts were known to him.
10. Offence Under Section 182 of IPC is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine
which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. Now so far as the limitation
aspect is concerned, Section 468 of the Code mandates that no Court shall
take cognizance of offence beyond the period of limitation of one year
if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year. The period of limitation for filing complaint/lodging of FIR for
commission of offence under Section 182 of IPC starts from the date when
the fact that the complaint was false, comes within the knowledge of
the police official concerned.
11. As per the version of the respondents, calendra under Section
182 of IPC was registered/entered vide DDR No. 10 dated 27.10.2011
against the present petitioner. As per the stand taken by learned Additional
Advocate General, the same had been presented in the Court but no action
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
could be initiated against on the same, as in the meanwhile, petitioner had
filed a protest petition and then private complaint and then process was
issued on that complaint. However, on a perusal of record, it is revealed that
there is no material to show that the calendra under Section 182 of IPC was
presented before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction before filing of the
protest petition. Rather, on a perusal of Annexure P-7 which is copy of
application dated 22.03.2021 submitted by SHO, Police Station Fatehgarh
Panjtoor before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Moga for presentation of calendra, it is revealed that the original calendra
entered vide DDR No. 10 dated 27.10.2011 was brought by Inspector
Gurjant Singh in the Court in the private complaint filed by the petitioner
and in his statement as recorded before the Court on 02.02.2016, photocopy
of the said calendra was tendered as Ex. D-2, in defence evidence of the
accused named there and at that time, the original calendra was attached
with the judicial file and no further action was taken. The police has
submitted certified copy of calendra on 22.03.2021 after the accused named
in the FIR No. 20 faced trial in the private complaint and even after about
1½ from the date of passing or order dated 18.10.2019 whereby application
moved by the petition for grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated
26.04.2017, was dismissed. It is well settled proposition of law that a
complainant can not be booked for offence of giving false information to the
police, punishable under Section 182 of IPC when the accused named in his
complaint had faced full fledged trial. Prosecution agency can initiate
proceedings against such person for offence under Section 182 of IPC only
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
during investigation of the case on finding that information supplied by him
was false. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon observations made by
this Court in Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006(4) RCR (Criminal)
488.
12. So far as argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
to the effect that Court was not competent to take cognizance on the calendra
in view of bar created under Section 468 of the Code is concerned, it may be
stated that according to this provision, no Court is competent to take
cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of one year, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and the
offence under Section 182 of IPC is punishable for imprisonment up to one
year only. However, it is also to be noted that the period of limitation for
filing complaint/lodging FIR for commission of offence under Section 182
of IPC started from the date when the fact that the complaint was false came
within the knowledge of the concerned police official. In this case, the
calendra had been prepared on 27.10.2011 by entering DDR No. 10 after
preparation of cancellation report. However, this calendra had been
presented before the Court for taking action only on 22.03.2021. Even while
presuming that the concerned Court could not take cognizance of offence
under Section 182 of IPC during the pendency of the private complaint,
however, then the judgment of acquittal had been passed in that complaint
on 26.10.2017 and even application of petitioner for grant of leave to appeal
was decided on 19.10.2019. Taking that date as the relevant date since when
cognizance could be taken in the matter, still the cognizance on the calendra
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156612
which has been presented only on 22.03.2021 had become barred by law of
limitation and as such could certainly not be taken by the learned trial Court.
13. Apart from the above, a perusal of the impugned order dated
22.03.2021 reveals that on presentation of the calendra, the learned trial
Court straight way proceeded to issue notice against the present petitioner
without passing any specific order reflecting due application of mind and
due to that reason also the proceedings on the calendra cannot be stated to be
sustainable. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon 'Krishan Murari
and others vs. Mohinder Pal, 1983 RCR (Criminal) 21' wherein it was
observed so. In view of the discussion as made above, this Court is inclined
to hold that the calendra filed under Section 182 of IPC and the order dated
22.03.2021 as well as the subsequent proceedings having emanated
therefrom are not sustainable in the eyes of law and amount to abuse of
process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order calendra and order dated 22.03.2021 alongwith subsequent
proceedings having arisen therefrom are quashed.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
25th November, 2024
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
8 of 8
