SATYA PAL SONI, ADVOCATE Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO U T HOME DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is an advocate has been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate First - Class, Chandigarh, for the commission. of an offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. He has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending against him. He had lodged a report with the police on April 7, 1981, complaining of the misconduct of Shri, K.D. Mohan who is an advocate of Simla. It was alleged against him that after having taken drinks and entering a portion of the house which he had kept reserved for himself he picked up a quarrel with the petitioner. The police recorded the report in the daily diary trying to make out a case under section 107 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure for the taking of security proceedings K.D. Mohan subsequently lodged another report himself and denied that be had taken any drinks. He thereafter got himself medically examined and obtained a report in his favour The police considering that the petitioner had made an utterly false report about drinking filed a challan under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against him.

(2.) THE point of determination is whether any false information given to the police with a view to taking security proceedings against a person would amount to the commission of an offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE police had only to make an report to an Executive Magistrate and it was such Magistrate who after considering that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding against the man concerned who was to issue a notice to him. under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police themselves could not take any effective step against the person complained against. It has been clarified in Kantilal Damodardas v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 Gujarat 218 that any false information given by a witness to the police and recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not entitle them to launch prosecution under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this authority, the information for which prosecution can lie must fall under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to cite any authority to the contrary. I thus hold that the information said to have been given by the petitioner could not entail his prosecution under section 182 of the Indian, Penal Code and for that reason the petition is allowed and the proceedings against him before the trial Magistrate are quashed. Petition allowed.