Police Cannot File Qalandra for False Complaint Made to Senior Authority: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Whistleblower

Case Name: Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 05 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-48441-2018

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where a complaint or representation is made to a superior public authority and is later found to be false, any prosecution for making such false allegations must be initiated by the concerned public servant or a superior authority, as mandated under Section 195 CrPC. Proceedings initiated by a subordinate officer such as a Station House Officer are legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned Qalandra and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Summary: The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a Qalandra presented against him under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 titled State through SHO P.S. Haibowal, Ludhiana v. Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. The challenge also extended to the order dated 11.06.2018 whereby notice had been issued to the petitioner.

The petitioner claimed that he had submitted representations to authorities alleging misuse of reservation benefits by an individual who had allegedly secured public employment on the basis of an OBC certificate. The authorities examined the matter and concluded that no action for cancellation of the certificate was required. The petitioner thereafter submitted further representations to higher police authorities seeking action.

Pursuant to these representations, an inquiry was conducted by a senior police officer at the level of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. The inquiry report concluded that the allegations made by the petitioner were not substantiated and also observed that the complaint cast aspersions upon a Judicial Officer. On the basis of this report, directions were issued to initiate proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, leading to the filing of the impugned Qalandra by the Station House Officer before the Magistrate.

The petitioner contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction since the complaint had been made before superior authorities and any action for a false complaint could only be initiated by the concerned authority or an officer administratively superior to it. It was further argued that the Magistrate had mechanically issued notice without examining the statutory bar under Section 195 CrPC and without considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in P.D. Lakhani v. State of Punjab.

On the other hand, the State argued that the inquiry revealed the petitioner had levelled false allegations against a public servant and therefore proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act had been validly initiated. It was further argued that the SHO was competent to present the Qalandra and that the petitioner had remedies before the trial court to challenge its maintainability.

The High Court examined the scheme of Section 195 CrPC, which mandates that for certain offences affecting administration of justice or involving false complaints, cognizance can be taken only upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or a superior officer. The Court observed that the legislative intent behind this provision is to prevent prosecution being initiated by officers lower in hierarchy than the authority before whom the alleged false complaint was made.

Applying this principle, the Court noted that the petitioner’s representations had been addressed to the Commissioner of Police and the inquiry had also been conducted at that level. If the complaint was found to be false, any prosecution should have been initiated by that authority or a superior authority. The filing of the Qalandra by the Station House Officer, who was subordinate in the administrative hierarchy, was therefore contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 195 CrPC.

The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in P.D. Lakhani v. State of Punjab, which held that complaints in such circumstances must be filed by the concerned public servant or a superior officer and cannot be initiated by an inferior officer.

The Court further observed that the Magistrate had registered the Qalandra and issued notice in a routine manner without examining the statutory bar or applying judicial mind to the question of maintainability. Such mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, the Court held, undermines the safeguards embedded in criminal procedure.

At the same time, the Court clarified that quashing the proceedings on the ground of violation of Section 195 CrPC does not grant immunity to the petitioner. The judgment only addresses the jurisdictional defect and does not determine the merits of the allegations. The State remains free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law through the competent authority.

The Court also expressed concern over increasing instances of frivolous or improperly initiated prosecutions and emphasized that the procedural safeguards under Section 195 CrPC are mandatory jurisdictional prerequisites and cannot be treated as mere technicalities.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Qalandra along with all consequential proceedings including the order dated 11.06.2018 issuing notice to the petitioner. The Court also directed the Director General of Police, Punjab to institute a sensitisation programme for police officials to ensure strict compliance with Section 195 CrPC and to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances under which the impugned Qalandra was filed.