HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole controversy involved in this petition is whether under the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala was competent to file the complaint for an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code or that the Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali was also competent to do so.

(2.) THE brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Harbans Singh petitioner moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, contending that his daughter Harvinder Kaur was married with Varinder Singh Sethi S/o Tarlok Singh Sethi, Patiala, about 3-1/2 years ago, and she was blessed with a daughter named Silky. Varinder Singh and in-laws of Harvinder Kaur, namely, Trilok Chand and Uttam Kaur tortured her for having brought less dowry. He also alleged that Harvinder Kaur was turned out of her in-laws' house after giving her beatings in order to compel her to fetch Rs. 10,000/- from her father i.e. Harbans Singh. Ultimately on 26-1-88 Harbans Singh learnt from his relation Shri Gurmukh Singh of Patiala that Harvinder Kaur alongwith her daughter has gone to Sunam to her parents' house on 22-10-88. Harbans Singh enquired about the whereabouts of Harvinder Kaur from his son-in-law and the parents but as they failed to give any satisfactory reply, Harbans Singh filed a complaint before the Senior Supdt. of Police for registration of case for offence under Section 498-A, 364/34 IPC. On that basis of this complaint, the formal FIR was registered vide No. 187 at Kotwali, Patiala on 28-10-88. During the investigation of the case it was found that the above referred allegations levelled by Harbans Singh in the complaint/FIR, were false as the investigating officer found that Harvinder Kaur had gone to Manikaran Gurdwara and informed her parents on 24th October, 1988 in this regard. The FIR was thus got cancelled. The Sub Inspector then filed calender/complaint against Harbans Singh for offence under section 182 of IPC. The trial Court on the basis of the calender Annexure P-1 finding a prima facie case against Harbans Singh for the above-referred offence issued the show cause notice vide order dated 13-9-89 Annexure P2. Harbans Singh, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The trial Court then adjourned the case for recording evidence. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the petitioner had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the calender dated 8-12-88, cancellation report dated 25-11-88 and the proceedings resulting therefrom.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, there is no option but to quash the Kalender/complaint Annexure P. 1 as well as the order of summoning annexure P2 of trial Court and the proceedings resulting therefrom as the continuation of the same would certainly result in the abuse of process of law by accepting this petition. It is ordered accordingly. Order accordingly.