' This petition has been filed for quashment of the Qalandara/ complaint under section 182 of the P.P.C. And the proceedings being taken against the petitioner on the basis thereof.
2. The sole point for consideration is whether the S.P. Discipline was competent to make a complaint for action under section 182 of the P.P.C. Against the petitioner. By virtue of the provisions of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. No Court can take cognizance of an offence under section 182 of the P.P.C. Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The public servant concerned is the one to whom false information was given with an intent to cause the said public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. In the case of Ali Ahmad v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 772 the complaint was made to the D.I.-G. Of Police against the Prosecuting Inspector with the allegation that he had obtained illegal gratification. On inquiry the complaint was found to be false. Upon this the S.H.O.
Made a complaint to the Court for action under section 182 against the accused. The trial Court convicted the accused and his appeal was dismissed. However, in the revision petition filed by the convict before the High Court, it was held that only the D.I.-G. Was the concerned public servant and the S.H.O. Was not competent to make a complaint. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the convict was set aside. Likewise in the case of Abdul Hanan v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 777 the complaint under section 182 of the P.P.C. Against the accused was drafted and lodged by an A.S.-I.
Although originally the accused had made his report to the S.H.O. It was held that section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Did not permit any delegation of authority by a public servant concerned and the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint lodged by the A.S.-I. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the convict under section 182 of the P.P.C. Was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. In the present case, admittedly, the applications Annexures "C" and "D" were submitted by the petitioner before the I.-G. Of Police, Punjab and on inquiry the same were found to be false. Therefore, only the I.-G. Of Police was competent to make a complaint before the competent Magistrate for action against the petitioner under section 182 of the P.P.C. However, the complaint was actually made by the S.P. Discipline though approved by the D.I.-G. Of Police. Both of them were not competent to lodge the complaint and on his turn the S.H.O.
Was not competent to register a case under section 182 of the P.P.C. On the direction of the S.P.
Discipline. The correctness of the abovesaid legal position has been candidly conceded by the learned Additional Advocate-General who appeared on behalf of the State although Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate who also appeared for the State vainly tried to argue otherwise.
3. In this view of the matter, the petition is accepted and the impugned Qalandara/complaint under section 182 of the P.P.C. Is quashed leaving it open to the competent authority to make a fresh complaint, in accordance with the law.
Complaint quashed.