CIVIL APPEAL 1685 of 2006 on 25 May 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.***

Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2006.Date of Decision: March 20, 2008.

***

Karam SinghVersusState of Haryana and others.

***

Before:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan.***

Present:Shri Pankaj Midha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri P.M.Anand, Additional Advocate General,Haryana.

***

R.S.Madan, J

The sole question which has been raised by the petitioner inthis petition is whether under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity to be referred to as the “Code”),only the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jind was competent to file thecomplaint for an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian PenalCode or that the Station Housed Office of the Police Station Sadar, Jindwas also competent to do so.

By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged thecorrectness, propriety and legality of the judgment dated May 25, 2006passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby theappeal filed by the present petitioner against his conviction and sentencefor the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissedand the petitioner was released on probation for a period of one year.

The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of thispetition is that Karambir Singh resident of Village Daryawala was married inVillage Khedar. He along with his family had gone to attend the marriage inhis in-laws house. He died there due to heart attached. Hi in-0laws called Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2006.

doctor Anant Ram and the doctor on reaching found Karambir dead. His in-laws informed about the death of Karambir to the in-laws of Shakuntla wifeof Karambir. Accused Karam Singh reached Village Khedar and afterverifying the facts and the cause of death of his brother Karambir,cremated the dead body in his native village in the presence of thevillagers. The petitioner thereafter made three complaints to theSuperintendent of Police, Jind alleging therein that his brother Karambirdied due to strangulation or poisoning. The inquiry was conducted by thedifferent police officers and on inquiry it was found that the cause of deathof Karambir was heart attached and none else. Having found all thecomplainants to be false, calandra under Section 182 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, was filed against the petitioner by the Station HouseOfficer of Police Station Sadar, Jind, which resulted into conviction andsentence for a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 500/-.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and haveminutely swayed the submissions of the learned counsel.

In the case in hand the complaint , which was filed by thepetitioner was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jind and theinquiry was conducted by the Station House Officer of Police StationSadar, Jind. It is admitted fact that no first information report was registeredin the police station on the basis of that complaint. Thus it can be well saidthat it was under the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jindthat the said complaint was inquired into by the SHO, who on inquiry foundthe allegations levelled in the complaint as false and immediately thereaftersubmitted the calandra against the petitioner under Section 182 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that theorders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and by theJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, under Section 182 Cr.P.C., are null and void and are liableto be set aside, in view of the well settled law by this Court. In support ofhis contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Harbans SinghVersus State of Punjab 1991(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 113, wherein it has beenobserved as under:-

“ According to the provisions of Sections 195(1) ofthe Code of Criminal procedure, the court couldhave taken cognizance only on the complaint inwriting of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jindor some other superior Officer to whom he isadministratively subordinate. By no stretch ofimagination, it can be said that Station House Officerof the Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala, who had filedthe Kalendra, Annexure P-1, against Harbans Singhpetitioner for an offence under Section 182 IPC, iscompetent to do the same. If that if so then theimpugned order of the trial Court taking cognizanceof offence under Section 182 IPC against theaccused-petitioner being violative of mandatoryprovisions of Section 195(1) of the Code is notsustainable”.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General,Haryana submitted that the revision petition has become infructuousbecause vide order dated May 25, 2006 passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Jind, the petitioner was released on probation underSection 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his furnishing personalbond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, for aperiod of one year. He contended that the period of one year probation hassince expired and hence, there is no merit in this revision and the same bedismissed as having become infructuous.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keepingin view the sole question, which has already been diluted and dealt with bythis Court in Harbans Singh's case (supra), I am of the considered viewthat the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind andby the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, are liable to be set aside beingagainst the statute.

As a result, the revision petition is accepted. The orders dated May 25, 2006 (Annexure P-1) and December 09, 2004 (Annexure P-3)passed by the courts below are hereby set aside and the petitioner isacquitted of the charge framed against him.

March 20, 2008Malik

(R.S.Madan) Judge