Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Dhiman vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-20721-2025
-1-
132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20721-2025
Date of Decision: 12.02.2026
Sanjeev Dhiman ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Sumit S. Bairagi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of Kalandra under
Section 182 IPC dated 31.10.2021 issued by respondent No.3, whereby, CHI
No.1213 of 2021 has been registered against the petitioner before learned
JMIC, Kurukshetra and all the subsequent pending proceedings arising out of
the same.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint
before Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra on the allegations of mental and
physical harassment at the behest of his in-laws. After inquiry by respondent
No.3, the complaint was found to be false. Thereafter, proceedings under
Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner
is before this Court praying for quashing of the Kalandra proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner filed a complaint before respondent No.2 i.e. Superintendent of
Police, Kurukshetra on the allegations of mental and physical harassment at the
behest of his in-law. He submits that the complaint was marked to respondent
No.3 i.e. SHO, Police Station, Kuruksehtra University Kurukshetra, however,
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 21:14:21 :::
CRM-M-20721-2025
-2-
after conducting inquiry in the same, respondent No.3 found the same to be
false. He further submits that thereafter, respondent No.3 without any authority
has wrongly issued the impugned Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against the
petitioner. It is submitted that various complaint and false cases were filed by
wife of the petitioner against the petitioner in UK as well as in Delhi. He
submits that the police officials had failed to conduct a fair and impartial
investigation in the matter and illegally issued Kalandra under Section 182 IPC
without taking into consideration the allegations made by the petitioner in the
complaint. He has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Laxmi
Narain Sharma vs. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-10328-2022
decided on 03.07.2023 and Sajjan Singh vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-
19718-2022 decided on 20.03.2024 and thus, submits that as per the law
settled, Kalandra, if any, could have been issued by Superintendent of Police or
the officer, senior to him. He, thus submits that in the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, the impugned Kalandra deserves to be
quashed.
4. Notice of motion to the official respondents only.
5. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of
the State. He though has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner, however, does not dispute the legal propositions relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, this Court finds that the petitioner had submitted a complaint before
the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, which was marked to respondent
No.3 for inquiry. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, respondent No.3
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 21:14:22 :::
CRM-M-20721-2025
-3-
proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC by issuing the
impugned Kalandra dated 31.10.2021. It is a settled proposition of law that
in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C., cognizance of an offence under Section 182
IPC can be taken only upon a complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate. The SHO, who merely conducted the inquiry, was not
competent to initiate such proceedings when the original complaint had
been made to the Superintendent of Police.
6. To understand the controversy in hand, statutory provisions of
Section 195 IPC is necessary to be considered, which is reproduced as
under:-
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall
take cognizance –
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both
inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except
on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or
other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;
b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 21:14:22 :::
CRM-M-20721-2025
-4-under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code,
when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect
of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in
any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii),
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in
this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.]
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under
clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is
administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the
complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon
its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken
on the complaint :
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered
if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a
Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal
constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if
declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this
section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court
shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals
ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such
former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose
decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having
ordinarily original civil jurisdiction within whose local
jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate :
Provided that-
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 21:14:22 :::
CRM-M-20721-2025
-5-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate
Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such
Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b)where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court,
such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or
Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or
proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to
have been committed.”
7. The Apex Court in the case of P.D.Lakhani & another Vs.
State of Punjab & Another, cited as 2008(5) SCC 150 while dealing with
a similar proposition held as under:
“12. The Station House Officer would have jurisdiction to
investigate into the matter provided a first information report
was lodged by him in terms of the complaint made by the
appellant No. 2. Whatever action was taken in the matter was
pursuant to the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police
Jalandhar.
The High Court, in our opinion, thus, committed a
manifest error in so far as it held that the as the complaint was
addressed to the SHO, he was the appropriate authority to lodge
a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under Section
182 of the Indian Penal Code.
The fact that the search was made pursuant to the
directions issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jalandhar is not in dispute. Section 195 contains a bar on the
Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence. When a
complaint is not made by the appropriate public servant, the
Court will have no jurisdiction in respect thereof. Any trial held
pursuant thereto would be wholly without jurisdiction. In a case
of this nature, representation, if any, for all intent and purport
was made before the Senior Superintendent of Police and not5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 21:14:22 :::
CRM-M-20721-2025
-6-before the Station House Officer.
13. No complaint, therefore, could be lodged before the learned
Magistrate by the Station House Officer. Even assuming that
the same was done under the directions of Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jallandhar, Section 195, in no
uncertain terms, directs filing of an appropriate complaint
petition only by the public servant concerned or his superior
officer. It, therefore, cannot be done by an inferior officer. It
does not provide for delegation of the function of the public
servant concerned. We may notice that in terms of sub-section
(3) of Section 340 of the Code, a complaint may be signed by
such an officer as the High Court may appoint if the complaint
is made by the High Court. But in all other cases, the same is to
be done by the presiding officer of the court or by such officer
of the court as it may authorise in writing in this behalf.
Legislature, thus, wherever thought necessary to empower a
court or public servant to delegate his power, made provisions
therefor. As the statute does not contemplate delegation of his
power by the Senior Superintendent of Police, we cannot
assume that there exists such a provision. A power to delegate,
when a complete bar is created, must be express; it being not an
incidental power.
14. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab [(1962)2 SCR 812],
Hidayatullah, J. (as the learned Judge then was), held as under :
“… In our opinion, this is not a due compliance with the
provisions of that section. What the section contemplates
is that the complaint must be in writing by the public
servant concerned and there is no such compliance in this
case.”
The said decision was followed by a Division Bench of
this Court in State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh & Ors. [(1994)4
SCC 95], stating :
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 21:14:22 :::
CRM-M-20721-2025
-7-“A cursory reading of Section 195(1)(a) makes out that in
case a public servant concerned who has promulgated an
order which has not been obeyed or which has been
disobeyed, does not prefer to give a complaint or refuses
to give a complaint then it is open to the superior public
servant to whom the officer who initially passed the
order is administratively subordinate to prefer a
complaint in respect of the disobedience of the order
promulgated by his subordinate. The word ‘subordinate’
means administratively subordinate, i.e., some other
public servant who is his official superior and under
whose administrative control he works.”
8. Weighing the fact the facts and circumstances of the present
case on the anvil of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned
Kalandra dated 31.10.2021 issued by respondent No.3 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom cannot be sustained and are liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The Kalandra dated
31.10.2021 under Section 182 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, including CHI No.1213 of 2021 pending before learned JMIC,
Kurukshetra, are hereby quashed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
12.02.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2026 21:14:22 :::
