Section 182 IPC proceedings cannot continue before judicial determination of the cancellation report.

The petitioner lodged FIR No. 173 dated 30 July 2022 under Sections 323, 324, 34 and 506 IPC at Police Station Titram, Kaithal, alleging that respondent No. 4, his father-in-law, assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon when he went to bring back his wife.

During investigation, the Medical Officer opined that the injury appeared to be self-inflicted. The police further concluded that the petitioner had arrived alone with his hand already bandaged and had falsely implicated respondent No. 4 due to matrimonial discord.

A cancellation report was prepared on 19 November 2022 and presented before the Magistrate on 19 December 2022. The petitioner expressed his intention to file a protest petition, which he filed on 20 March 2023; it remained pending and the cancellation report was never accepted.

Meanwhile, on 7 February 2023, the Station House Officer filed a Calendra under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner for furnishing false information.

1. Whether the Calendra under Section 182 IPC was invalid because it was presented by the Station House Officer, although the investigation had been verified by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, contrary to Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

2. Whether proceedings under Section 182 IPC could be initiated and continued before the Magistrate had accepted the cancellation report and while the petitioner’s protest petition remained pending.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, including Section 182 IPC, except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or another public servant to whom that public servant is administratively subordinate.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355; Banta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 133; Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 718; Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 791; Babita v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516; and Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-31662-2017, decided on 29 April 2024. These authorities establish that where the police find an FIR to be false, the cancellation report must first be placed before the Magistrate, who may accept it, disagree with it and proceed according to law, or direct further investigation. Proceedings under Section 182 IPC should not proceed before the cancellation report is judicially accepted, since doing so would pre-judge the informant’s protest petition and the truthfulness of the original allegations.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s objection under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. because the original statement forming the basis of the FIR was made to a police official of Police Station Titram, and the Calendra was filed by the Station House Officer of the same police station. The statutory requirement was therefore satisfied; verification of the investigation by a superior officer did not require the Calendra to be presented by that officer.

However, the Court held that the proceedings were premature. The cancellation report had not been accepted by the Magistrate when the Calendra was filed, and the petitioner’s protest petition remained pending. Since the judicial determination of whether the FIR allegations were false was incomplete, prosecuting the petitioner under Section 182 IPC would effectively treat the allegations as false in advance and pre-judge the protest proceedings. Continuation of the prosecution consequently amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

It answered the second issue in favour of the petitioner, holding that proceedings under Section 182 IPC could not properly continue before acceptance of the cancellation report while the protest petition remained pending. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the Calendra dated 7 February 2023, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.