Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7104 of 2013)

SANTOSH BAKSHI  … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.             … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th July,  

2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-1834 of 2010 (O&M). By  

the impugned order, the High Court rejected the petition filed  

u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,  

‘Cr.PC’) preferred by the appellant.  

3. The case of the appellant is that she got married to the  

brother  of  respondent  no.3-Vivek  Kumar  Bakshi  on  4th August,  

2006. After marriage, she shifted to her matrimonial house at  

Ludhiana  and  just  thereafter  her  in-laws  started  demanding  

dowry. The husband of the appellant always stood with her and  

protected her from various atrocities committed by in-laws and  

respondent  no.3.  When  the  matter  became  out  of  control  the  

appellant on 17th January, 2009 made a complaint to the Senior  

Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (now known as Commissioner  

of Police, Jalandhar) alleging therein continuous harassment,

Page 2

2

beating  and maltreating  meted out  to her  in connection  with  

dowry with specific allegations with date, time etc.

4. According to the appellant, Police kept the matter pending  

for long at the instance of respondent no.3 and refused to take  

any action. No FIR was registered in spite of the fact that the  

complaint disclosed cognizable offence.  

5. On 6th April, 2009, the appellant filed a complaint under  

the  Protection  of  Women  from  Domestic  Violence  Act,  2005  

(hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) against her in-laws. In  

the said case, her in-laws arrived at a compromise with the  

appellant that they will allow her to live in her matrimonial  

house at Ludhiana. They also agreed that no maltreatment will be  

meted out to her and they will keep her in a nice manner and  

they will remain bound by their statements.  

6. Further  case  of  the  appellant  is  that  respondent  no.3  

having personal grudge with her husband due to greed of property  

submitted an affidavit on 23rd April, 2009 before the Police  

Authorities. Respondent no.3 also stated that the allegations in  

the complaint are false and to take action u/s 182 IPC against  

the  appellant.  On  24th April,  2009,  Deputy  Superintendant  of  

Police, Jalandhar submitted a report in which the assertions  

made by respondent no.3 were considered and the complaint was  

filed in the office. On the basis of affidavit, Police submitted  

a Calendra No.18 dated 5th October, 2009 in the Police Station  

Division No.1, which was prepared and presented in the Court by  

Rajesh Kumar, SI SHO Division No.1, Jalandhar. The approval for

Page 3

3

taking action against the appellant u/s 182 IPC was obtained  

from SSP, Jalandhar in November, 2009.   

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid false and frivolous Calendra,  

the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-1834 of 2010 u/s  

482  Cr.PC  before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh  which was  rejected by  the High  Court by  impugned  

order and judgment dated  12th July, 2013.   

8. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  made  the  following  

submissions:

(i) The  High  Court  has  wrongly  concluded  that  since  

husband  of  the  appellant  was  not  made  a  party,  

complaint was filed with ulterior motive.

(ii) The High Court also failed to consider that in the  

complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic  

Violence Act, 2005, the allegations are identical to  

the complaint made to the Police.

9. On the other hand, according to learned counsel for the  

respondents,  the  appellant  all  the  time  filed  false  and  

frivolous complaints before the Police Authorities.  

10. In  the  affidavit  (Annexure  P/3)  respondent  no.3  alleged  

that  the  appellant  has  lodged  false  complaint  against  his  

parents, sister, brother and brother-in-law. Name of Respondent  

No.3 was not there but when he helped his old parents, brother,  

sister and brother-in-law in shifting from Ludhiana to Jalandhar  

then  appellant  mentioned  his  name.  Respondent  no.3  further  

alleged that the appellant and her husband are harassing him by

Page 4

4

lodging false complaint at Ludhaina as well as at Jalandhar and  

requested the authorities to take legal action against them u/s  

182 IPC.  The SHO, P.S. Div. No.1 by note dated 1st May, 2009  

forwarded the said affidavit. The deposition of respondent no.3  

was recorded by Executive Magistrate, Tehsil, District Ludhiana.  

However, the deposition is not on record.  

11. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar by letter  

dated 24th April, 2009 referring to the application filed by the  

appellant intimated that for the purpose of investigation when  

the appellant was summoned she has narrated the matter in the  

same way as mentioned in her application. He further intimated  

that statement of Vivek Bakshi s/o Kewal Krishan Bakshi has got  

recorded. In his statement, Vivek Bakshi has stated that the  

application which has been moved against him by his sister-in-

law is wrong and he has no dispute with her. Moreover, she is  

intentionally  harassing  him  and  leveling  allegation  of  dowry  

against his parents and others, which is absolutely incorrect  

and wrong.  It was further mentioned in the letter that the said  

case being related to a family property partition, the Police  

cannot interfere with the same and that a case is pending in  

Court and the allegations leveled by the complainant (appellant  

herein) regarding the misappropriation of dowry articles etc.  

are  not  proved.  The  dowry  articles  and  jewellery  of  the  

appellant were lying as it is in her house and there is no truth  

in the application. It was recommended to file the application.  

On the basis of such letter, after advise of District Attorney  

(Legal), approval of the SSP, Jalandhar was taken and Calendra

Page 5

5

u/s 182 IPC was prepared and was ordered to be presented before  

the Court.

12. The  respondents  have  not  disputed  that  the  complainant-

appellant earlier submitted complaint dated 17th January, 2009 to  

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (now known as  

Commissioner  of  Police,  Jalandhar).  In  the  said  complaint,  

allegation of continuous harassment, beating and maltreatment of  

the appellant for demand of dowry with specific allegations with  

date,  time  etc.  were  made.  It  is  alleged  that  the  Police  

Authorities kept the complaint pending for long and failed to  

register  any  FIR.  In  the  meantime,  the  appellant  filed  an  

application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence  

Act, 2005. In the said case, the in-laws of appellant arrived at  

a comprise with the appellant and agreed to allow the appellant  

to live in her matrimonial house at Ludhiana. Further, they also  

gave assurance that the appellant will not be meted out with any  

maltreatment and they will keep appellant in nice manner.  

13. The  aforesaid  fact  has  not  been  disputed  by  the  

respondents. The reading of the statement made by the parties  

clarifies the following facts:

(a) That the appellant was thrown out of her matrimonial  

house at the instance of one or other persons among  

the in-laws.

(b) Assurance given by in-laws that they will not maltreat  

the appellant makes a presumption that one or other  

member of the family maltreated the appellant.

Page 6

6

(c) Assurance  given  by  the  in-laws  they  will  keep  the  

appellant in nice manner in future, suggests that the  

appellant was not treated in nice manner by one or  

other member of the family.  

14. The complaint, if made, by any woman alleging offence under  

the  Protection  of  Women  from  Domestic  Violence  Act,  2005  

committed by any member of the family, the matter is to be  

looked upon seriously. The Police without proper verification  

and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made  

out. The Investigating Agency is required to make proper enquiry  

not  only  from  the  members  of  the  family  but  also  from  

neighbours,  friends  and  others.  After  such  enquiry,  the  

Investigating Agency may form a definite opinion and file report  

but  it  is  for  the  Court  to  decide  finally  whether  to  take  

cognizance for any offence under any of the provisions of the  

Act.  

15. Section 182 IPC relates to false information, with intent  

to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of  

another person and reads as follows:

“182.  False  information,  with  intent  to  cause public servant to use his lawful power to  the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to  any  public  servant  any  information  which  he  knows or believes to be false, intending thereby  to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he  will thereby cause, such public servant-

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant  ought not to do or omit if the true state of  facts respecting which such information is given  were known by him, or

(b)  to use the lawful power of such public servant  to the injury or annoyance of any person,

Page 7

7

shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either  description for a term which may extend to six  months, or with fine which may extend to one  thousand rupees, or with both.”

16. To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients  

are to be proved:

(i) An  information  was  given  by  a  person  to  a  public  

servant.

(ii) The information was given by a person who knows or  

believes such statement to be false.

(iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause  

or knowing it to be likely to cause (a) such public  

servant to do not to do anything if the true state of  

facts respecting which such information is given were  

known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such  

public  servant  to  the  injury  or  annoyance  of  any  

person,

17. In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to  

show  that the  appellant has  given information  which she  was  

knowing and believing to be false. In the investigation report  

it has not been reported that the appellant was knowing that the  

information given is false but still gave the information to  

harass the respondent No.3.  

18. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s  

182 IPC, we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash  

the proceedings u/s 182 IPC. The High Court failed to notice the  

relevant facts and mechanically dismissed the application u/s  

482 Cr.PC.  

Page 8

8

19. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order  

dated 12th July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana at Chandigarh, quash the complaint filed by respondent  

no.3 u/s 182 IPC, the order of approval granted by the SSP in  

November,  2009  and  proceeding  if  initiated  against  the  

appellant.

20. The appeal is allowed. No costs.   

…………………………………………J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

…………………………………………J.

       (KURIAN JOSEPH)    

NEW DELHI,

JUNE 30, 2014.