CRM-M-4027-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CRM-M-4027-2023 Date of Decision:21.07.2026 VISHAL NAYYAR ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Pandher, AAG, Punjab H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Kalandra/GD No.18 dated 18.01.2018 presented before the Court of learned SDJM/ACJ(SD), Nakodar, under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 24.01.2018 and the subsequent order whereby the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the said offence. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased father of the petitioner had earlier lodged a FIR No.41 dated 13.02.2013 under Sections 420, 452, 323 and 506 IPC against respondent No.4 and others as the father RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4027-2023 2 of the petitioner was cheated to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner's father committed suicide and left behind a suicide note, pursuant to which FIR No.72 dated 02.04.2013 under Section 306, 34 IPC was registered against respondent No.4 and others. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner, being the complainant in the said FIR No.72 and a witness in the other FIR, alleged that the accused persons repeatedly pressurized and threatened him to enter into a compromise. On 30.06.2017, the petitioner allegedly submitted a complaint to the police stating that respondent No.4 and others had intercepted, abused and assaulted him and threatened him for refusing to compromise. Thereafter, respondent No.4 submitted an application dated 11.09.2017 alleging that the petitioner had lodged a false complaint. Upon enquiry, the allegations made by the petitioner were found to be false and baseless. Consequently, Kalandra/GD No.18 under Section 182 IPC was initiated against the petitioner and presented before the learned SDJM/ACJ(SD), leading to the subsequent proceedings which have been challenged in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the kalandra could have been filed only by the public servant to whom the alleged false information was given or by a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. However, in the present case, the kalandra has been filed by an officer who was neither the recipient of the alleged complaint nor administratively subordinate to such officer. Thus, the Kalandra/GD No.18 is illegal and not maintainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4027-2023 3 for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2008 titled as P.D.Lakhani & Anr Vs State of Punjab and Anr cited as 2008(5) SCC 150. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the complaint submitted by the petitioner was found to be false and accordingly, proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C were initiated against the petitioner by presenting aforesaid Kalandra. The State counsel further submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.D.Lakhani & another Vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra), while dealing with a similar proposition has held as under: "12. The Station House Officer would have jurisdiction to investigate into the matter provided a first information report was lodged by him in terms of the complaint made by the appellant No. 2. Whatever action was taken in the matter was pursuant to the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police Jalandhar. The High Court, in our opinion, thus, committed a manifest error in so far as it held that the as the complaint was addressed to the SHO, he was the appropriate authority to lodge a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact that the search was made pursuant to the directions issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar is not in dispute. Section 195 contains a bar on the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence. When a complaint is not made by the appropriate public servant, the Court will have no jurisdiction in respect thereof. Any trial held pursuant thereto would be wholly without jurisdiction. In a case of this nature, representation, if any, for all intent and purport was made before the Senior Superintendent of Police and not 5 of 7 CRM-M-20721-2025 before the Station House Officer. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4027-2023 4 13. No complaint, therefore, could be lodged before the learned Magistrate by the Station House Officer. Even assuming that the same was done under the directions of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jallandhar, Section 195, in no uncertain terms, directs filing of an appropriate complaint petition only by the public servant concerned or his superior officer. It, therefore, cannot be done by an inferior officer. It does not provide for delegation of the function of the public servant concerned. We may notice that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 340 of the Code, a complaint may be signed by such an officer as the High Court may appoint if the complaint is made by the High Court. But in all other cases, the same is to be done by the presiding officer of the court or by such officer of the court as it may authorise in writing in this behalf. ” 7. It is evident that complaint with regard to offence punishable under Section 182 IPC, as per provision contained under Section 195 Cr.P.C has to be maintained either by the public servant to whom such complaint was presented or an officer superior to him. Undoubtedly, complaint was given by the petitioner to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) Jalandhar. On inquiry, it was found that allegations leveled by the petitioner in complaint could not be corroborated and thus, action under Section 182 IPC was contemplated against the petitioner. Consequently, SHO, Police Station City, Nakodar presented Kalandra against the present petitioner in the Court concerned. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others 1983 (1) RCR Criminal 540, the Kalandra presented by SHO of the concerned police station is not maintainable as per the mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C, as the complaint which was made by the petitioner was addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) Jalandhar. Kalandra suffers from inherent procedural defect and was not presented in consonance with the provisions of Section 195 RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4027-2023 5 Cr.P.C and thus, deserves to be quashed. 8. In light of the above, the present petition is allowed and Kalandra/GD No.18, presented before the Court of learned SDJM/ACJ(SD), Nakodar, under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 24.01.2018 and the subsequent order whereby the petitioner was charge- sheeted for the said offence are hereby ordered to be quashed. (H.S.GREWAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh