CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17383-2023 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 26.08.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.08.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.08.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent No. 4. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashing of the Calendra dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), filed under Section 182 of IPC against the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.173 dated 30.07.2022, registered under Sections 323, 324, 34 and 506 of IPC at MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -2- Police Station Titram, District Kaithal, Haryana, as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by the petitioner alleging therein on 30.07.2022, he along with his mother Savitri Devi, had gone to the house of his in-laws at village Sisla, District Kaithal, to take back his wife Komal. When the members of her family refused to send her back with him, his father-in-law, Dharam Paul @ Suresh (respondent No.4), attacked him with a sharp-edged weapon, causing an injury on his left hand. On this statement, the petitioner was medically examined and one injury was noticed on his left hand. 3. During investigation, an opinion was sought from the Medical Officer as to the manner in which the injury noticed in the MLR of the petitioner could have been caused. The Medical Officer, after going through the MLR and the X-ray report, opined that there was nothing on record to suggest otherwise than that the said injury was a self-inflicted wound. Further investigation was thereafter conducted by SI Ranbir, and the case was verified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnal-2 (respondent No.3), on the spot. Upon enquiry from the parties and the residents of the village, it was found that the petitioner had come alone to village Sisla in his car and had already tied a white-coloured cloth (parna) on his left hand before reaching there; that the injury reported by him had not been inflicted by respondent No.4; and that the petitioner appeared to have got the present case registered with a view to pressurize the family of his wife Komal, with whom he was, admittedly, involved in matrimonial discord. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -3- 4. On the aforesaid basis, a cancellation report was prepared on 19.11.2022 and presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kaithal, on 19.12.2022. However, on the complainant (the petitioner herein) having expressed his dissatisfaction with the police report and his intention to file a protest petition, the matter was adjourned to 20.03.2023 for that purpose. The petitioner accordingly filed his protest petition on 20.03.2023, whereupon the matter was adjourned to 06.07.2023 for arguments thereon. As per the record, the said protest petition remains pending consideration before the learned Magistrate, the cancellation report not having been accepted. 5. In the meanwhile, upon the allegations levelled by the petitioner in FIR No.173 having been found to be false during investigation, the impugned Calendra under Section 182 of IPC (Annexure P-1) was presented against the petitioner by the Station House Officer, Police Station Titram, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaithal, on 07.02.2023, i.e. prior to the filing of the petitioner’s protest petition and while the cancellation report had not yet been accepted by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned Calendra along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Calendra is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as the cancellation report had not been accepted by the learned Magistrate at the time the Calendra was presented and the protest petition filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration. Continuation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC at this stage would, therefore, amount to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -4- pre-judging the said protest petition. Reliance is placed upon Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 791, wherein it was held, following State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 355, that till the acceptance of a cancellation report by the Court, a case under Section 182 IPC cannot be allowed to proceed, as it would tantamount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the person against whom such proceedings are initiated. 7. It is further argued that the impugned Calendra suffers from a legal infirmity inasmuch as, though the case was investigated and approved by an officer of the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Calendra itself came to be presented by an officer of the rank of Station House Officer, in violation of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon Babita v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516, wherein it was held that a complaint filed before the Senior Superintendent of Police, but presented under the signatures of the Station House Officer, was not maintainable, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned Calendra and the consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, opposes the petition and submits that a thorough investigation was conducted in FIR No.173, during the course of which the allegations levelled by the petitioner were found to be false. In fact, it was found that the injury sustained by the petitioner was self-inflicted and that he had got the present case registered only with a view to pressurize MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -5- the family of his wife. It is submitted that the cancellation report was accordingly prepared and presented before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and that no infirmity attaches to the impugned Calendra. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 10. The controversy in the present petition revolves around the legality of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 182 of IPC on the basis of the Calendra dated 07.02.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Calendra could not have been presented by the Station House Officer, as the case had been verified by an officer senior to him. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted. Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, including Section 182 IPC, except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the statement which formed the basis for registration of FIR No.173 dated 30.07.2022 was made by the petitioner to HC Pawan Kumar of Police Station Titram, and that the impugned Calendra under Section 182 IPC was presented by the Station House Officer of the very same Police Station. The objection that the Calendra could not have been presented by the Station House Officer and was required to be presented through the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had verified the case, cannot, therefore, be accepted. The requirement of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. stands satisfied on the facts of the present case. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -6- 11. The aforesaid conclusion, however, does not dispose of the matter. The question which still requires consideration is whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC could have been initiated and permitted to continue at the stage when the Calendra was presented. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner himself. During investigation, the allegations made therein were found to be false, and a cancellation report was accordingly prepared on 19.11.2022 and presented before the learned Magistrate on 19.12.2022. On the said date, the petitioner expressed his intention to file a protest petition, and the matter was adjourned for that purpose; the petitioner filed his protest petition on 20.03.2023, and the matter has since been pending consideration. At no stage, prior to the presentation of the impugned Calendra on 07.02.2023, the cancellation report was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Rather, on the contrary, the protest petition filed by the petitioner against the said report remains pending adjudication even as of date. 12. The legal position regarding the permissibility of proceedings under Section 182 IPC in such circumstances has been considered by this Court in Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-31662-2017, decided on 29.04.2024. In the said case, this Court considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others, 2006(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 271, and noticed that where the police forms an opinion that the allegations made in an FIR are false, the proper course is to submit a cancellation report before the Magistrate so as to afford an opportunity to the informant to file a protest petition; the Magistrate, upon MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -7- receipt of such report, has the recognised options of accepting the report, disagreeing with it and proceeding in accordance with law, or directing further investigation. The issue whether proceedings under Section 182 IPC can proceed before the Court has finally determined the truthfulness of the allegations made by the informant has also been considered by this Court in Banta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 133, following State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta (supra), where it was held that permitting proceedings under Section 182 IPC while a complaint filed by the informant on the same facts is being proceeded with would amount to pre-judging the complaint. The same principle was reiterated in Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 718, and in Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), and was followed in Babita v. State of Punjab (supra), wherein it was observed that where the final opinion of the Court regarding the falsity of the complaint had not yet been expressed, permitting proceedings under Section 182 IPC would amount to pre-judging the complaint and would be premature and an abuse of the process of law. 13. In the present case, the principle underlying the aforesaid judgments applies with equal force. The cancellation report submitted in FIR No.173, registered on the petitioner’s own complaint, was never accepted by the learned Magistrate; on the contrary, the petitioner’s protest petition against the said report has remained pending consideration since 20.03.2023. Therefore, when the impugned Calendra was presented on 07.02.2023, and even thereafter, the question whether the allegations made by the petitioner in the FIR were false had not attained any final judicial determination. The institution of proceedings under Section 182 IPC at that stage, and its MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17383-2023 (O&M) -8- continuation thereafter, has the effect of placing the petitioner in the position of an accused for having furnished false information even before the judicial process concerning the very allegations made by him has reached its conclusion. 14. The object behind the principle laid down in the aforecited authorities is to ensure that a person who approaches the police with allegations is not simultaneously prosecuted for furnishing false information when the very allegations made by him are still awaiting judicial determination. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that although the objection based upon Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted, the continuation of the proceedings under Section 182 IPC in the peculiar facts of the present case, at a stage when the cancellation report had not been accepted and the petitioner’s protest petition remains pending adjudication, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the Calendra dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), filed under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 27.08.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document