Skip to content


Varinder Mohan Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(2009)154PLR794
AppellantVarinder Mohan
RespondentState of Punjab and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredKrishan Murari and Ors. v. Mohinder Pal
Excerpt:
.....and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid..........official. by mere lodging of ddr, police had not proceeded to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting such information are given or lawful power of such public servant has been used to the injury or annoyance of any such person. section 182 ipc read as under:182. false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.- whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were.....
Judgment:

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Varinder Mohan son of Ram Sarup seeking quashing of Kalandra under Section 182 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner-Varinder Mohan lodged Daily Diary Report, Annexure P-3 at Police Station Lambra. It was stated in the Daily Diary Report that on the night of 3/4.7.2005 he was driving his Scorpio bearing registration No. PB-08-AK-6280 and was coming from Nakodar to Lambra. When he reached near the gate of village Nanka, he saw that a private bus was standing there. When he made an attempt to cross over the bus, one Tata Sumo came on a very high speed. Due to the glare of head lights of Tata Sumo, he could not see and his Scorpio hit the bus which was parked there. The front of the Scorpio was badly damaged. However, no body, suffered any injury. A note was given by MHC Sukhwinder Pal that since only vehicle has been damaged, no cognizable offence is made out. Daily Diary Report was recorded on 4.7.2005 at 7.30 P.M. On 17.7.2005, Inspector Didar Singh, S.H.O. Lambra submitted a kalandra, Annexure P-l in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar. He stated that in fact Scorpio vehicle had suffered an accident on 3.7.2005 at 3.00 P.M. in between Shahbad and Kurukshetra in the State of Haryana with Haryana Roadways bus and from there the accidental Scorpio was brought by Tirath Ram son of Ram Lubhaya to Jalandhar by tying the same with his Sumo.False report was made in order to gain insurance claim.

3. On presumption of the Kalandra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar on 29.7.2005 passed the following order:

Kalandra presented today. It be registered. Let notice to accused be issued for 12.08.2005.

4. Two-fold submissions have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition. Firstly, in the present case, no FIR was lodged, therefore, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Malkiat Singh v. State of Haryana 1999 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 10, no offence under Section 182 IPC is made out. First submission raised merit attention and is required to be dealt with by this Court. It has been stated that until and unless, FIR is recorded, it cannot be said that a false report was submitted to police official. By mere lodging of DDR, police had not proceeded to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting such information are given or lawful power of such public servant has been used to the injury or annoyance of any such person. Section 182 IPC read as under:

182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

A perusal and dissection of the Section reveal two essential ingredients that by such information furnished, public servant ought to have done or omitted to have done something relying upon such information or had used his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any such person. In the present case, none of these two essential ingredients were followed. MHC Sukhwinder Pal had given a note that there is no negligence on the part of any person. The accident occurred suddenly and naturally and no offence against any body is made out. Therefore, the information given was neither acted upon nor something which ought to have been done by the police official was not done. Therefore, there was no omission on the part of police official. Non registration of the case has not caused injury or annoyance to any person but at the same time giving of a false information to the police cannot be ignored. Therefore, Code of Criminal Procedure has taken care of this eventuality also. There are other penal provisions which take care of act of commission or omission on the part of the accused. Lodging of false information for obtaining insurance claim will constitute which offence require application of mind. The offence may not fall under Section 182 IPC.

5. The judgment relied upon by Counsel for the petitioner in Malkiat Singh's case (supra) cannot be applied in each and every case as a matter of rule. It is not necessary that any information recorded in Daily Diary Report must be converted into FIR for proceeding against the person who has given information for offence under Section 182 IPC. Wherein in a Daily Diary Report, a note is appended that the matter is to be investigated or report of Chemical Examiner or Forensic Expert is awaited and thereafter action shall be initiated, in that case police officer had formulated an opinion to proceed with the case, therefore, ingredients of Section 182 IPC is complete. There can be many instance, same cannot be specified and put in water tight jackets. Therefore, in each and every case before summoning, Magistrate had to apply mind whether offence under Section 182 IPC is made out or not. Magistrate may not give reasons for the same. An observation by the Magistrate 'Record perused. Prima facie offence is made out' will suffice.

6. Secondly, it has been stated by the petitioner in the petition that order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar reproduced earlier, lack application of mind and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. I find merit in this contention also. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Murari and Ors. v. Mohinder Pal 1993 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 21 held that it is not necessary that summoning order should be speaking order. However, it must reflect application of mind. A perusal of summoning order reveal that not only the same is cryptic but it cannot be comprehended that the Magistrate was alive to the issues involved. Merely two lines have been noticed 'Kalandra presented. It be registered and notice be issued.' On this score also summoning order, Annexure P-2 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted. Summoning order, Annexure P-2 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar who shall apply mind to the submissions made and dealt with by this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //