‘Hollow thunder’: Quashing case against social worker, Punjab and Haryana High Court raps ‘weaponisation’ of allegations

Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing the plea of a man seeking to nullify the criminal complaint filed against him under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act.

“This court is cognisant of the alarming proliferation of frivolous and vexatious complaints where baseless allegations are routinely weaponized to unsettle the administration of justice,” the high court observed on March 5.

Background

• The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, a social worker, had submitted a representation to the commissioner of police, Ludhiana, alleging that an individual had secured public employment through the misuse of an OBC certificate.
• A subsequent police inquiry conducted by a senior officer concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated and had cast aspersions on a judicial officer.
• Based on this report, directions were issued to a station house officer (SHO) to initiate proceedings against the petitioner.
• A Ludhiana magistrate subsequently issued a notice to the petitioner based on the SHO’s qalandra.
• A qalandra is a police report or notice initiated to prevent breach of peace or public disorder and acts as a preventive legal proceeding, rather than a criminal complaint, requiring the accused to appear before a magistrate.
• The petitioner challenged the proceedings, arguing they were “without jurisdiction” because the SHO, a subordinate officer, was not competent to file the complaint under Section 195 (bars courts from taking cognisance of specific offences) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• The state contended that the SHO was an authorised officer and that the inquiry had revealed the petitioner’s allegations to be “false and motivated”.

‘Textbook example of procedural dereliction’

• The legislature has also provided for a special procedure to be followed in the prosecution of these offences in Section 195 CrPC/215 BNSS, which deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice, and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
• The requirements contained in Section 195 CrPC/Section 215 BNSS are not merely directory but are mandatory jurisdictional pre-requisites.
• These procedural mandates are frequently bypassed or treated with a sense of casual indifference.
• The filing of the impugned qalandra without adherence to the strictures of Section 195 CrPC represents a textbook example of procedural dereliction, rendering the entire prosecutorial exercise a brutum fulmen (hollow thunderbolt) that unnecessarily squanders judicial time and state resources.
• Filing of qalandra by the police under Section 195 of the CrPC is not a perfunctory procedural ritual, but a substantive exercise of sovereign power aimed at vindicating the majesty of the law.
• While the provision is couched in restrictive terms, stipulating that “No court shall take cognizance….”, this statutory bar is not intended to stifle the ends of justice.

• Rather, it acts as a sentinel on the qui vive (alert), ensuring that the machinery of law is triggered exclusively by the concerned public authority to prevent private vendettas from clogging the wheels of justice in matters where the state is the primary aggrieved party.
• Section 195 of the CrPC transcends its role as a restrictive shield and emerges as an enabling mandate, empowering the state to act as the custodian of public order and the parens patriae (parent of the nation) of the administration of justice.
• To treat this process as a secondary task is to invite a State of Anomie (breakdown of social norms) and to erode the imperium of the state.
• The public servant, acting on behalf of the State, must realise that they are the sole guardians of the legal threshold in these matters.
• Any delay or lackadaisical approach in filing the qalandra not only undermines the efficiency of the administration but also grants a de facto immunity to offenders, thereby compromising the rule of law.
• The initiation of these proceedings must be characterised by due diligence and an unwavering commitment to bringing offences against the public authority to justice.
• The filing of a qalandra represents the discharge of a statutorily imposed duty that must be permeated with due diligence and a high degree of professional responsibility.

‘Misuse of statutory provisions’

• The scheme of Section 195 CrPC clearly mandates that in respect of certain offences relating to public justice, cognisance can be taken only upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
• The legislative intent is to ensure that prosecutions for alleged false complaints or offences affecting the administration of justice are not initiated at the instance of officers lower in hierarchy than the authority before whom the alleged false complaint was made.
• It is not in dispute that the representations of the petitioner were addressed to the commissioner of police, and the inquiry was conducted by a senior officer at that level.
• If the complaint was found to be false, the law required that any consequential proceeding(s) ought to have been initiated by the authority concerned or by an officer administratively superior.
• The initiation of proceedings by the SHO, who is subordinate in the hierarchy, is contrary to the mandate of CrPC Section 195.

• It is borne out from the record that the petitioner had approached the authorities by way of representation(s) on a matter which, according to him, involved public interest.
• Whether the allegations were ultimately found to be correct or not is a different matter, but the recourse to criminal process in the manner adopted in the present case appears to be a misuse of the statutory provisions.
• The impugned qalandra presented by the SHO is not maintainable in law, and the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
• The court has not adjudicated upon the factual merits or the innocence of the petitioner; the state remains at liberty to initiate a fresh complaint or qalandra in strict accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

‘State must not remain mute spectator’

• In cases involving personal or proprietary harm, the individual grievance typically drives the litigation; however, where the offence is directed against the lawful authority of a public servant or the sanctity of judicial proceedings, there is often no ‘individual victim’ to pursue the cause.
• In such instances, the state must not remain a mute spectator or act with a sense of lethargy that reduces a solemn statutory obligation to a mere formality.
• 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 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007, Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
• Section 66 says that whoever makes a false statement or a statement which is misleading as to immaterial particulars to a police officer for the purpose of obtaining any benefit shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months, or with a fine, not exceeding rupees ten thousand, or with both.

Directions to DGP

• The Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab, is directed to institutionalise a comprehensive sensitisation programme for all police officials within the State of Punjab to ensure strict adherence with the mandatory provisions of Section 195 CrPC/Section 215 BNSS.
• The DGP shall conduct a formal inquiry to ascertain whether the filing of the impugned qalandra by the concerned SHO was a result of bona fide professional error or was motivated by malafide intentions or ulterior consideration.