Listen To This Post

Punjab DGP directed to train officers on mandatory legal procedures; court quashes Kalandra filed against petitioner

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Director General of Police to launch a statewide sensitisation programme for police officials, emphasising that prosecutions for false or vexatious complaints against public authorities cannot be initiated casually or without strict adherence to legal procedure.

The order was passed by Justice Sumeet Goel while quashing a Kalandra filed under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, holding that the proceedings had been initiated in clear violation of the statutory safeguards laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court also directed that a compliance report on the sensitisation measures and related inquiry be submitted within six weeks.

Court Flags Rise in Frivolous Complaints

Justice Goel observed that the court was “cognisant of the alarming proliferation of frivolous and vexatious complaints where baseless allegations are routinely weaponised to unsettle the administration of justice.”

The case arose from allegations made by a petitioner, who described himself as a social worker, claiming that a judicial officer had secured public employment using an allegedly incorrect OBC certificate.

However, welfare authorities examined the matter and concluded that no action was required against the officer. A subsequent police inquiry also found the allegations unsubstantiated.

Based on the inquiry report, the SHO concerned initiated proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act for allegedly providing false information to the police.

Mandatory Procedure Ignored

Examining the case, the High Court noted that offences relating to false information given to public servants fall within the scope of Section 195 of the CrPC, which clearly mandates that prosecution can only be initiated upon a complaint by the concerned public servant.

The court emphasised that this requirement is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory jurisdictional safeguard.

Justice Goel remarked that the police had ignored these statutory requirements, describing the filing of the Kalandra as a “textbook example of procedural dereliction.” He said such lapses wasted judicial time and public resources, calling the proceedings a “brutum fulmen” — a harmless thunder that produces no legal effect.

Inquiry Ordered into SHO’s Conduct

Apart from quashing the proceedings and the magistrate’s notice issued to the petitioner, the court ordered a formal inquiry to determine whether the SHO’s action in filing the Kalandra was a genuine error or motivated by mala fide intent or ulterior considerations.

At the same time, the court clarified that quashing the proceedings does not prevent authorities from initiating fresh action in accordance with law if legally permissible.

The judgment underscores the High Court’s concern about recurring procedural lapses in criminal investigations and stresses the need for police officials to strictly adhere to statutory safeguards before initiating prosecution in cases involving alleged false complaints against public authorities.