P&H High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Making Accusations Against Judge, Asks DGP To Run Police Awareness Program On S.215 BNSS

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making false allegations against a judicial officer, holding that the prosecution was initiated in violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Sumeet Goel held that a Kalandra filed by a Station House Officer was not maintainable where the original complaint had been made to a superior police authority. While setting aside the proceedings, the Court also directed the Director General of Police, Punjab to conduct a statewide sensitisation programme for police officials to ensure strict compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).An inquiry was thereafter conducted at the level of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana through a senior police officer. The inquiry concluded that the allegations were not substantiated and observed that the complaint cast aspersions on a judicial officer. On the basis of this report, directions were issued to the SHO of Police Station Haibowal to initiate proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, leading to the filing of the impugned Kalandra before the Magistrate, who issued notice to the petitioner on June 11, 2018.The petitioner contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction since the complaint had been made to a superior police authority and was examined at that level. It was argued that if the complaint was found to be false, proceedings could only be initiated by the authority before whom the complaint was made or by a superior authority, and not by a subordinate officer. The petitioner also argued that the Magistrate had mechanically issued notice without examining the statutory bar under Section 195 CrPC or considering the Supreme Court's ruling in P.D. Lakhani v State of Punjab.The State, on the other hand, defended the proceedings and submitted that the inquiry had found the petitioner's allegations against a serving judicial officer to be false and motivated. It was argued that the SHO had acted pursuant to directions issued by competent authorities and that the petitioner could raise all objections before the trial court.After hearing the parties, the Court held that the scheme of Section 195 CrPC clearly mandates that cognizance for certain offences affecting public justice can be taken only upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or a superior officer. The Court noted that since the petitioner's representations had been addressed to the Commissioner of Police and the inquiry was conducted at that level, any prosecution for filing a false complaint had to originate from that authority or a superior authority.Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in P.D. Lakhani v State of Punjab, the Court held that the filing of the Kalandra by the SHO—who was subordinate in the administrative hierarchy—was contrary to the mandate of Section 195 CrPC. The Court further observed that the Magistrate had issued notice in a routine manner without examining the statutory bar or applying judicial mind to the question of maintainability.Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned Kalandra was not maintainable in law and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The Court, however, clarified that quashing the Kalandra would not grant the petitioner immunity from lawful prosecution.Legislature Safe Guards And Bypassing With 'Casual Indifference'The Court observed that it is "cognizant of alarming proliferation of frivolous and vexatious complaint where baseless allegations are routinely weaponized to unsettle the administration of justice. To prevent the machinery of law from being transmuted into an instrument of harassment, the legislature, in its thoughtfulness, has enacted specific safeguards in the form of Section 66 Punjab Police Act, 2007; Section 182 IPC, 1860; Section 217 BNS, 2023."Pertinently, the legislature has also provided for special procedure to be followed in prosecution of these offences in Section 195 Cr.P.C./215 BNSS. The requirements contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS are not mere directory but are mandatory jurisdictional pre-requisite, it added.The Court highlighted regrettably, these procedural mandates are frequently bypassed or treated with a sense of casual indifference.In the instant case, the filing of the Impugned Qalandra without adherence to the strictures of Section 195 Cr.P.C. represents a textbook example of procedural dereliction, rendering the entire prosecutorial exercise a brutum fulmen that unnecessarily squanders judicial time and state resources, it added.State Of Anomie Emphasising the importance of adherence to statutory procedure, the Court observed that the filing of a Kalandra is not a perfunctory ritual but a substantive exercise of sovereign power meant to safeguard the authority of public institutions. ...

P&H High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Making Accusations Against Judge, Asks DGP To Run Police Awareness Program On S.215 BNSS

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

P&H High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Making Accusations Against Judge, Asks DGP To Run Police Awareness Program On S.215 BNSS

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers