The Court quashed a Kalandra under Section 182 IPC because it was presented by a DSP to whom the complaint was not made, relying on precedent that an officer must be competent to file the charge based on who received the complaint.
Kalandra dated 21.04.2005 along with all consequential proceedings quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 17253 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2010.
Jagdeep Singh.
...... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... RESPONDENT
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of impugned Kalandra dated 21.04.2005, Annexure P3, under Section 182 of IPC presented by DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Muktsar in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar alongwith all consequential proceedings.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged complaint was made by the present petitioner to DGP, Vigilance
2
CRM No.M-17253 of 2008
Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh on the basis of which no case was registered and after brief inquiry, the same was filed. It is further contended that no Kalandra under Section 182 IPC has been presented against the petitioner by DGP, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh to whom complaint was made and that rather the same has been presented by DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Muktsar, who is not competent to file the Kalandra as per law. He has also referred to Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 418 .
These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. It has also been so stated in the reply filed on behalf of State that the complaint was made to the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh and that however, the present complaint/Kalandra has been filed by DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Muktsar. However, it has been contended by learned State counsel that the Kalandra was filed by the DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Muktsar on the direction of Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh and that hence, it cannot be said that the same has been filed by incompetent person.
I have considered all the facts of this case.
On similar facts, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh’s (case supra) while relying upon Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206 and some other judgments of this Court, held that the SHO, P.S. Mahilpur who had filed the Kalandra, was incompetent as the complaint was not made to him but was made to the SSP and DIG and hence, the Kalandra and subsequent proceedings were quashed.
So far as legal proportion regarding competence to file the Kalandra before the court is concerned, there is nothing as to why I should take a different view than the one taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in
3
CRM No.M-17253 of 2008
Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra). In the present case as well Kalandra has not been presented by the officer to whom the complaint was made and rather Kalandra has been presented by an officer subordinate to him. Hence, it cannot be said that Kalandra has been presented by a competent person before the court.
Hence, for the reasons stated above, the present petition is accepted and Kalandra dated 21.04.2005, Annexure P3 alongwith all subsequent proceedings, is, hereby, quashed.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 18, 2010. JUDGE 'om'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Kalandra under Section 182 IPC presented by a subordinate officer should be quashed as the complainant made the case to a superior officer
Whether the filing of Kalandra by an incompetent officer violates the principle of locus standi under Section 482 CrPC
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶15
_Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 418_
Daulat Ram v. State of PunjabRelied on¶21
_Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206_ · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdeep Singh
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
