Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Savinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab. - CRM-19868-M-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 3380 (23 May 2006)

Crl.Misc. No.19868-M of 2003. :-1-:


Criminal Misc. No. 19868-M of 2003.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2006.

Savinder Kaur & Anr.



Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate


State of Punjab.



Mr. B.S.Sewak, DAG, Punjab.


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)

In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer for quashing of the proceedings under Section 182 IPC initiated against the petitioners on the basis of Calendra dated 27.11.2002 registered at Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana, has been made.

Briefly stated, the facts are that FIR No.91 dated 26.5.2000, under Sections 420/34 IPC was registered in Police Station, C-Division, Ludhiana on a complaint (Annexure P-1) made by the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted a cancellation report pertaining to the aforesaid FIR but the same was turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 10.10.2002 after observing that "no ground Crl.Misc. No.19868-M of 2003. :-2-:

has been made out to accept the request of the prosecution. Hence the same is declined for cancellation of the present FIR". The file was sent back to the Senior Superintendent of Police for re-investigation. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed a private complaint under Sections 419,409,467,468,471/34 IPC against the same accused persons in which, on consideration of the preliminary evidence led by them, learned Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 2.4.2002 summoned the accused persons. So far as FIR No. 91 dated 26.5.2000, referred to above, is concerned, the police, after re- investigation, again presented a cancellation report which was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 18.2.2003 (Annexure P4) with the following observations:-

"Accordingly, no purpose will be served by sending again and again for investigation in view of the statement of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted at bar that the complainant has already filed a complaint which is also pending for the same allegations as mentioned in the FIR. Accordingly, the complainant has already availed the remedy to pursue against the said persons.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, request of the prosecution is accepted for allegations of FIR No.91/2000, u/s 420/34 IPC, Police Station "C" Division, Amritsar".

However, even before acceptance of the cancellation report by the Judicial Magistrate, for the reasons mentioned in his above reproduced order, the police authorities of Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana submitted a Calendra under Section 182 IPC on 27.11.2002 (Annexure P-5) Crl.Misc. No.19868-M of 2003. :-3-:

alleging that FIR No.91 dated 26.5.2000 was got registered by the petitioners knowingly, on the basis of false and concocted allegations and, thus, prima facie, offence under Section 182 IPC was made out. The petitioners have been summoned in the said Calendra.

Aggrieved, they have approached this Court.

From the above resume of facts, it stands crystalized that the allegations contained in FIR No.91 dated 26.5.2000 which the petitioners appear to have reiterated in their private complaint in which summoning order (Annexure P-3) has been passed, have not been found to be false, concocted or fabricated by any competent Court of law. The second cancellation report in relation to the afore-mentioned FIR was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate not on the ground that the allegations were found to be false but on the ground that the petitioners have already filed a criminal complaint on the same set of allegations and, thus, no purpose will be served by continuing with the proceedings arising out of the FIR.

In some what similar circumstances, where there was no judicial verdict regarding falsehood of allegations contained in an FIR and where in a private complaint, the Court, having found sufficient evidence on record, had summoned the accused, this Court in the cases of (i) Ramti Devi v State of Punjab 1998(1) RCR (Crl.), 385 and Banta Singh v State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR (Crl.) 133 has held that the proceedings under Section 182 IPC can not be initiated.

As observed earlier, the allegations levelled by the petitioners in the FIR have yet not been disbelieved by a court of competent jurisdiction. The police authorities, merely on the basis of their own investigation report, can not be permitted to pronounce a verdict regarding Crl.Misc. No.19868-M of 2003. :-4-:

falsehood of the allegations.

For the reasons afore-mentioned, this petition is allowed. The impugned Calendar (Annexure P-5) as well as the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, there shall be a liberty to initiate such proceedings, if an occasion arises in future.

May 17, 2006. ( SURYA KANT )

dinesh JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.