LexP.D. LAKHANI AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 790 A P.O. LAKHANI AND ANR. ,...~ v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2008) B APRIL 22, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ,... . Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 195(1) - Jurisdiction to file complaint before Magistrate - Complaint c lodged to SHO - SHO asked complainant to approach SSP - SSP ordered investigation - On basis of investigation report, complaint filed by SHO before Magistrate - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable as s.195(1) permits only an officer before whom the complaint was filed and who ordered D investigation to be appropriate officer to file complaint before Magistrate - Therefore only SSP or his superior officer had ;urisdiction to file complaint but not subordinate "' ... officer (SHO). A complaint was lodged by the second appellant to E SHO against respondent No.2 on the premise that respondent no.2 was using their trade mark on inferior goods manufactured by them. He was asked to approach Senior superintendent of Poiice (SSP). The second appellant approached SSP with written complaint. In the F body of the said complaint itself, SSP directed one 'G' to comply with the said request. The search was conducted but nothing objectionable was found in the factory. A report to the said fact was submitted by 'G', In-charge Special Cell of the CIA. G Another report was filed by SP (Detective) before the SSP stating that application by appellant was found to be false after investigation due to which respondent no.2 had ~.., lost its goodwill and that the SHO was directed to take action against the officer of appellant company under H 790 P.O. LAKHANI AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 791 ANDANR. ~-.., s.182 IPC and that no further action was required on the A application. SHO, thereafter filed complaint petition before the Magistrate that during investigation complaint lodged by appellant-company was found to be false that the B r"f complaint was given by respondent No.2 to SSP. It was investigated by SP. After investigation they found that complaint filed by appellant was false and they had directed for necessary action under s.182 IPC. Appellant filed an application under s.482 Cr.P.C. c challenging the legality and validity of said report which was dismissed by High Court. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that having regard to the terminologies used in s.195(1) Cr.P.C., the complaint petition could have been filed only by the D .. .:..:· SSP or any authority higher in rank to him and in any event, the Managing Director of appellant-company being not concerned with the lodgin,Q of the earlier complaint, the complaint in question was not maintainable against him. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1_. S.195 Cr.P.C. provides for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant, for offences against public servant and for offences relating to F .. ..+ documents given in evidence. It contains an embargo stating that 'no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable, under the aforementioned provision except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate'. 'Contempt of a public G servant' has a definite connotation. Such contempt must "-e-4 be provided for by law. It must be found to be false. [Para 9] [797-D, E, F] 2.1. The SHO did not act on the complaint. He asked H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A the appellant No.2 to bring the same to the notice of the SSP, Complaint Branch, which he did. It was, thus, a complaint to a higher authority. The SSP only had asked the SP, Detective Branch to enquire into the matter and report within seven days. 'G', pursuant thereto was asked B to carry out the necessary search of the premises of the second respondent. The report of compliance by 'G' was made to the CIA staff. CIA staff, in turn, placed it before the SSP. The proceedings, therefore, were, indisputably, initiated by the SSP and not by the SHO. The SHO would C 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 SSP. The High Court, thus, committed a manifest error in 0 so far as it held that the as the complaint was addressed to the SHO, he was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.