Allowed¶26

Rajesh Verma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2026CRM-M/45363/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CRM-M-45363-2019 (O&M); decided 27.01.2026; Mandeep Pannu J. (Oral); Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition quashing Section 182 IPC kalandra against FIR complainant Rajesh Verma; FIR No.18 dated 17.11.2017 against three accused; cancellation report rejected by trial Court; re-investigation found FIR partially substantiated; challan against one accused, trial pending; falsity not final; derivative kalandra unsustainable; mutually destructive prosecutions; chilling effect on bona fide complainants; petition allowed, kalandra quashed without prejudice to main criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Kalandra/complaint under Section 182 IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed, without prejudice to the outcome of the main criminal case pending against the accused; pending application(s) disposed of.

Rajesh Verma Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the kalandra/complaint proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner-complainant should be quashed as premature and an abuse of the process of law, in view of the subsequent developments in the main case (rejection of the cancellation report, re-investigation, and pending trial against one accused).

¶14

Court's answer

The allegations in the FIR were not found wholly false; after re-investigation pursuant to the trial Court's directions the investigating agency itself found substance in the allegations against one accused and the FIR stands partially substantiated; therefore it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the petitioner furnished false information attracting the ingredients of Section 182 IPC.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the main prosecution arising out of the FIR is still pending and one accused is facing trial, the element of falsity — the deliberate and conscious furnishing of false information essential to Section 182 IPC — cannot be said to have attained finality.

¶20

Key takeaways

Merely because two accused were found innocent during investigation does not render the entire FIR false; over-implication or exaggeration by itself does not satisfy the mens rea contemplated under Section 182 IPC, and the foundation of the kalandra, which was premised upon the cancellation report, stands eroded.ratio¶23
Once the cancellation report was rejected by the trial Court and a challan was filed against one accused, the police opinion declaring the FIR false lost its legal sanctity; the kalandra, being a derivative proceeding based on the cancellation report, cannot independently survive, and its continuation would amount to permitting inconsistent and mutually destructive prosecutions to run parallel to each other.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 182 IPC — kalandra against informant quashed as premature while main trial pending. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged a kalandra/complaint under Section 182 IPC recommended against the petitioner-complainant after police inquiry declared his FIR (No.18 dated 17.11.2017, against three accused) false in its entirety and a cancellation report was prepared. The trial Court rejected the cancellation report and ordered re-investigation; two accused were found innocent but sufficient material was found against one, against whom a challan was presented and whose trial is pending. Held: (i) the FIR stands partially substantiated, so the element of falsity — the essence of Section 182 IPC — had not attained finality while the main prosecution was pending; (ii) over-implication or exaggeration does not by itself satisfy the section's mens rea; (iii) the kalandra, a derivative proceeding based on the rejected cancellation report, cannot independently survive, and continuing it would amount to inconsistent, mutually destructive prosecutions and pre-judging the outcome of the main trial; (iv) prosecuting a complainant while the trial is unfinished would chill bona fide complaints. Petition allowed; kalandra and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed without prejudice to the main criminal case.

¶1

- 1-

¶2

CRM-M-45363-2019 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CRM-M-45363-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.01.2026

¶6

Rajesh Verma ....Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab a nd Another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶11

Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate fo r the petitioners.

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

¶14

Th e present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. see k ing quashing of th e kalandra/complaint instituted u nder Section 182 IPC against the petitioner–com p lainant, arising out of FIR N o.18, dated 17.11.2017 initi a lly registered agai n st three accused persons. The p etitioner has invoked the inhe r ent jurisdiction of t h is Court on the ground that co n tinuation of the proceedings u n der Section 182 IP C is an abuse of the process o f law and the same is prematur e in view of the sub s equent developments in the ma i n case. 2. Th e brief factual matrix reveals t hat on the basis of the compl a int made by the p etitioner, an FIR was register e d against three accused pers o ns. During the co u rse of investigation, one of t h e accused approached the po l ice authorities clai m ing false implication. The poli c e conducted an inquiry and opi n ed that the FIR w as false in its entirety, whe r eupon a cancellation report w as prepared. Simu l taneously, a kalandra/complai n t under Section 182 IPC was a lso recommended a gainst the present petitioner f o r allegedly lodging a false re p ort

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.27 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

- 2-

¶17

CRM-M-45363-2019 (O&M)

¶18

with the police. Both the cancellation report as w ell as the kalandra were prese n ted before the learn e d trial Court.

¶19

However, the learned trial Court d i d not accept the cancellation re p ort and ordered re-investigation in the matter. Pu r suant thereto, a fresh investiga t ion was conducted, wherein two of the accused w ere found to be innocent, whe r eas sufficient mate r ial was found against one accused and a challan was prese n ted against him. C onsequently, the main crimin a l case is presently pending t rial against one accused, while the kalandra un d er Section 182 IPC against the petitioner is als o pending adjudication. 4. It i s thus evident from the record that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR were not found to be w holly false. On the contrary, the investigating a g ency itself, after re-investigatio n pursuant to the Court’s directi o ns, found substanc e in the allegations against one a ccused. The FIR, therefore, stands partially substa n tiated. In such circumstances, i t cannot be conclusively held at t his stage that the p e titioner had furnished false info r mation to the police so as to att r act the ingredients o f Section 182 IPC.

¶20

Se c tion 182 IPC postulates that t he information given to a pu b lic servant must be false to the knowledge of the i n formant and must have been gi v en with the intenti o n to cause the public servant t o use his lawful power to the injury of another pers o n. The essential requirement o f the offence is the deliberate a nd conscious furn i shing of false information. In the present case, when the m ain prosecution ari s ing out of the FIR is still pend i ng and one accused is facing t r ial, the element of fa lsity cannot be said to have att a ined finality.

¶21

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.27 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-45363-2019 (O&M) - 3-

¶23

M e rely because two accused h a ve been found innocent du r ing investigation d oes not render the entire FIR false. Over-implication or exaggeration b y itself does not satisfy the me n s rea contemplated under Sec t ion 182 IPC. The outcome of the re-investigat i on clearly demonstrates that the petitioner’s ver s ion was not wholly incorrect, a nd therefore, the foundation of the kalandra, whic h was premised upon the cancell a tion report, stands eroded. 7. O n ce the cancellation report was rejected by the trial Court and a challan was fil e d against one accused, the opi n ion of the police declaring the F IR to be false lost i ts legal sanctity. The kalandra, b eing a derivative proceeding b a sed on the cancella t ion report, cannot independent l y survive after the rejection of the said report. C o ntinuation of such proceedi n gs would amount to permit t ing inconsistent an d mutually destructive prosecuti o ns to run parallel to each other. 8. It i s also significant to note th a t the veracity of the petition e r’s allegations is p r esently sub judice in the main c r iminal trial. Till such time the t rial culminates and t he Court records a final findin g on the truthfulness or falsity o f the prosecution cas e , it would be wholly prematu r e to prosecute the complainant for giving false in f ormation. Law does not per m it pre-judging the outcome o f a criminal trial th r ough collateral proceedings un d er Section 182 IPC. 9. Pe r mitting the kalandra proceedings to continue at this stage w o uld not only prejud i ce the petitioner but would als o have a chilling effect on bona f ide complainants a p proaching the police. Crimin a l law cannot be used as a too l to penalize a co m plainant merely because the p r osecution succeeds only parti a lly. Such an approa c h would defeat the very object o f criminal justice administratio n . 10. In view of the above discussio n , this Court is of the consid e red opinion that th e continuation of the kalandra / complaint under Section 182 I PC TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.27 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-45363-2019 (O&M) - 4-

¶25

against the peti t ioner is premature, unsustaina b le in law, and amounts to abus e of the process of t he Court. The necessary ingredients of Section 182 IPC are not made out at this stage.

¶26

Ac c ordingly, the present p e tition is allowed, and the kalandra/compl a int under Section 182 IPC an d all proceedings arising theref r om are quashed, w i thout prejudice to the outcome of the main criminal case pen d ing against the acc u sed. 12. Pe n ding application(s), if any, is/a r e disposed of.

¶27

January 27, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶28

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.27 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajesh Verma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Verma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afjal Ali Vs State of Haryana

Bhal Singh Alias Bhala Gujjar Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pankaj Vs State of Punjab

Sukhvinder Singh Alias Punjab Alias Panjab Vs State of Punjab and Others