Jai Singh Sekhon, J.
1. Through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Code, Devinder Singh Kapur petitioner seeks quashment of the Kalandra Annexure P7 and further proceedings thereon pending before the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib for offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, inter alia, on the ground that Om Parkash Sub Inspector Incharge of Police Station Anandpur Sahib had no competenancy to file complaint under Section, 195(1) of the Code as the petitioner had sent the application Annexure P. 1 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, the contents of which were allegedly found false and thus either the said Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar or his controlling officer was competent to file a complaint and not S.I. Om Parkash to whom the complaint Annexure P. I against S. 1. Ramesh Chand was simply entrusted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police for enquiry and report.
2. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Devinder Singh Kapur petitioner lodged complaint Annexure P. I with Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar against S. 1. Ramesh Chand, posted at Police Post Naya Nagai, Kiratpur Sahib, District Ropar, contending that aforesaid Ramesh Chand representing himself to be relation of the landlady of the premises, where the complaint used to reside occasionally brings along handcuffed accusedpersons from Punjab and uses the rented premises for torturing those persons. It is further averred that the petitioner along with the occupants of the adjoining houses when objected to the illegal activities of Ramesh Chand, the latter threatened them to involve the petitioner in some cases pertaining to terrorists activities. It is further averred that the complainant had moved application to the police of police post Sector 22 regarding this incident and that aforesaid SubInspector had again threatened the petitioner on 1891989 at 4 p.m. when he came to the house along with another police man in drunken condition. This complaint was marked by the Senior Superintendent of Police Ropar to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for enquiry who in turn entrusted it to S. I. Om Parkash for enquiry and proper action. S.I. Om Parkash found the allegations in the complaint to be false after recording the statements of some of the alleged residents of the locality near House No. 1567, Sector 22B, Chandigarh and instituted proceedings under Section 182, Indian Penal Code against Devinder Singh Kapur vide Annexure P7 in the Court of the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib.
3. This petition is resisted by the respondents through return filed by S.I. Om Parkash, Respondent No. 2 controverting the allegations of the petitioner averred in the petition except admittedly that the petitioner is a tenant in House No. 1567, Sector 22B under the landlady who had settled abroad and S.I. Ramesh Chand is a relation of the landlady. But on the other hand, it is maintained that he instituted proceedings under Section 182 of the Penal Code through Kalandra as the petitioner had levelled false allegations in the complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar with intent to cause the Senior Superintendent of Police to use his lawful power to the injury of another person SubInspector Ramesh Chand.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.
5. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 S.C. 355 had settled the controversy in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment that the Magistrate cantake cognizance of an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code on a complaint in writing of the concerned police officer to whom false information was given with intent to use such public officer''s lawful power to cause injury, to the other person by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(a) of the Code.
6. The Rajasthan High Court in State v. Bala Prasad, AIR 1952 Rajasthan 142, had also taken a similar view by observing that the public officer concerned under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a public servant to whom the information is given. On facts, it was found that in that case the false information was given to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. He would be the public servant concerned within the meaning of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code and competent to file complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further observed that the mere fact that the said officer had sent the application to the Station Officer of a particular police station would not make the Station Officer a public servant concerned to whom information was given.
7. The ratio of the above referred decision of the Apex Court in Court in Brij Lal Palta''s case (supra) and of the Rajasthan High Court in Bala Prasad''s case (supra) was followed by a Single Bench of this Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) C.L.R. 719 while holding that where a person had given false information through complaint addressed to the Senior Suprintendent of Police, prosecution under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be initiated by an officer subordinate in rank to the aforesaid Senior Superintendent of Police in view of the provisions of Section 19(1(a) of the Code.
8. In the case in hand also, the petitioner had addressed the complaint Annexure. P. 1 allegedly containing false information to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar. Thus, under the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) only the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, or his administratively controlling officer could have filed the complaint. The mere factum that the complaint was entrusted by the Senior Superintendent of Police for enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the latter in turn entrusted that to S. I Om Parkash incharge of P. S. Anandpur Sahib, is of no consequence to hold that S. I. Om Parkash was exercising powers on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the Kalandra Annexure P7 as well as the proceedings, resulting therefrom in the Court of the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib are hereby quashed by accepting his petition.
JUDGMENT accordingly.
