MITHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the pendency of criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner/complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar,copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P/2, proceedings initiated by the Police under Sec. 182 Crimial P.C. copy Annexure P/1, before the Illaqa Magistrate cannot be allowed to continue and they are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, Mr. Duggal relies on a judgment of this Court reported in Banta Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR 133 wherein the learned Single Judge has held that in a case where police had submitted Calender against the petitioner under Sec. 182 Crimial P.C. for making a false statement to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in respect of a criminal offence and such a petitioner had filed a complaint under Sec. 323/506 Penal Code before the Magistrate regarding the same incident and the Magistrate had summoned the accused persons, the complaint under Sec. 182 Crimial P.C. against the petitioner could not proceed and was liable to be quashed. Theleamed Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab Vs. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1989 SC 355.

(2.) The facts of the instant case are squarely covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge in Banta Singhs case (supra). Consequently, the proceedings under Sec. 182 Crimial P.C. initiated by the police against the petitioner vide Annexure P.l is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Petition is allowed and the Calender submitted and Sec. 182 Crimial P.C. in proceedings flowing therefrom is quashed qua the petitioner. Petition allowed.