HC orders Punjab DGP to sensitise police on procedure for prosecuting false complaints

Holding that prosecutions for false or vexatious complaints against public authorities cannot be initiated casually by the police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab DGP to initiate a statewide sensitisation programme for police officials to ensure strict compliance with the mandatory procedures.

The directions came in a case where allegations were levelled against a judicial officer. Justice Sumeet Goel asserted the court was “cognisant of alarming proliferation of frivolous and vexatious complaint where baseless allegations are routinely weaponized to unsettle the administration of justice”.  

Justice Goel also ordered a formal inquiry into whether the filing of a Kalandra against a person by the SHO concerned — in clear violation of mandatory provisions — was a bona fide error or motivated by “malafide intentions or ulterior consideration”.

Issuing the directions, Justice Goel quashed the Kalandra filed under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, while holding that the proceedings had been initiated in complete disregard of the statutory bar contained in Section 195 of the CrPC. The provision makes it clear that certain offences relating to false information given to public servants can be prosecuted only on a complaint made by the “public servant specified therein”.

A compliance report regarding the sensitisation measures and inquiry was also ordered to be submitted before the high court within six weeks. The ruling came in a case where the petitioner — claiming to be a social worker — had submitted representations to authorities alleging misuse of reservation benefits by an individual, who had secured public employment as a judicial officer on the basis of an OBC certificate. According to the petitioner, the certificate had been wrongly obtained.

The matter was examined by welfare authorities, who concluded that no action for cancellation of the certificate was required. The petitioner thereafter submitted further representations to higher police authorities.

An inquiry was then conducted in the office of Ludhiana Commissioner of Police through a senior officer. The inquiry report concluded that the allegations were not substantiated and further observed that the complaint had the effect of casting aspersions upon a judicial officer.

On the basis of that report, directions were issued to the SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007, dealing with false or vexatious information given to the police. Acting on the directions, the police filed a Kalandra — a preventive police report — before Ludhiana Judicial Magistrate First Class, who issued notice to the petitioner.

Examining the legality of the proceedings, Justice Goel observed that offences relating to giving false information to a public servant — including those punishable under provisions such as Section 182 of the IPC — were governed by the special procedure laid down under Section 195 of the CrPC.

The requirements were not merely procedural formalities but mandatory jurisdictional conditions. Expressing concern over recurring procedural lapses, Justice Goel observed such safeguards were frequently ignored by investigating agencies. “Regrettably, it has been observed that these procedural mandates are frequently bypassed or treated with a sense of casual indifference. In the instant case, the filing of the impugned Kalandra without adherence to the strictures of Section 195 of the CrPC represents a textbook example of procedural dereliction, rendering the entire prosecutorial exercise a ‘brutum fulmen’ (harmless thunder) that unnecessarily squanders judicial time and state resources.”

The court further elaborated on the rationale behind the provision, explaining that offences relating to false information against public authorities often did not involve a private victim, but affected the functioning of the state and administration of justice.

“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,” Justice Goel asserted.

Allowing the petition, the court quashed the Kalandra and all consequential proceedings, including the Magistrate’s order issuing notice. At the same time, the court clarified that the quashing of the proceedings did not prevent the state from initiating fresh action in accordance with law, nor did it amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations made in the original complaint.