RANDHIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr. P.C.) impugns the orders dated 4-4-2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu and 24-1-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. A direction has also been sought to respondent No. 3 to file the challan against respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, IPC). The principal ground for dismissal of the revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out in the impugned order is that complaint (Calendra) under Section 182, IPC should have been filed by the Superintendent of Police and not by the Station House Officer because the complaint was made by Bhola Ram to the Superintendent of Police. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1999) 1 Cri CJ 702.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2 is alleged to have filed a false complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani respondent No. 3 levelling allegations of forgery with a request to register a case against the petitioner under Sections 468/467/471/420, IPC. Respondent No. 3 forwarded the application of Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Loharu i.e. respondent No. 4 who registered FIR No. 131 dated 1-10-1997 under Sections 468/ 467/471/420, IPC against the petitioner. However, on investigation the complaint filed by Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2 was found to be false. For filing a false complaint the Station House Officer respondent No. 4 filed a complaint (Calendera) under Section 182, IPC against respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram was summoned by SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu. He raised an objection that the complaint filed by respondent No. 4-Station House Officer suffers from inherent defect as he had filed a complaint for taking action under Sections 468/467/471/420, IPC before the Superintendent of Police i.e. respondent No. 3 and, therefore, he alone was competent to file the complaint (Calendera) under Section 182, IPC. The Judicial Magistrate accepted the plea and discharged Bhola Ram-respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who also affirmed the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate. Placing reliance on Section 195, Cr. P.C. and in the cases of Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 3 Rec Cri R 113; Malkiat Singh (supra) and Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, (1998) 3 Rec Cri R 137 : (1998 Cri LJ 1409), the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed as under :

(3.) Mr. Anil Ghanghas, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 2-Bhola Ram should not be permitted to escape the liability of making a false report on technical ground that the complaint has not been filed by the Superintendent of Police. According to the learned counsel, the defect in the filing of complaint can be cured by issuing directions to the Superintendent of Police to file a complaint (Calendera) against respondent No. 2 under S. 182, I.P.C.