Complaint Under Section 182 IPC Must Be by Public Servant Concerned or His Superior — Not an Inferior Officer: P&H HC Quashes Section 182 IPC Kalandra

“When Statute Creates a Bar, Power to Delegate Must Be Express”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a Kalandra issued under Section 182 IPC, holding that a Station House Officer (SHO) is not competent to initiate proceedings when the original complaint was addressed to the Superintendent of Police.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj allowed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the Kalandra dated 31.10.2021 and all consequential proceedings, including CHI No.1213 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra.

The ruling underscores that Section 195 Cr.P.C. creates a complete bar to cognizance unless the complaint is filed by the public servant concerned or by a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, and that such power cannot be delegated in the absence of an express statutory provision.

Complaint to SP, Kalandra by SHO

The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra alleging mental and physical harassment at the behest of his in-laws. The complaint was marked to the SHO of Police Station Kurukshetra University for inquiry.

After conducting the inquiry, the SHO concluded that the complaint was false and proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC by issuing a Kalandra dated 31.10.2021. Consequently, CHI No.1213 of 2021 was registered before the learned JMIC, Kurukshetra.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the SHO lacked statutory competence to file the complaint under Section 182 IPC in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Competency Under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj framed the controversy squarely within the statutory mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

The Court observed that the original complaint had been made to the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 182 IPC, the “public servant concerned” was the Superintendent of Police and not the SHO who merely conducted the inquiry.

The Court held that “the SHO, who merely conducted the inquiry, was not competent to initiate such proceedings when the original complaint had been made to the Superintendent of Police.”

Supreme Court Precedent: P.D. Lakhani Applied

The Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in P.D. Lakhani v. State of Punjab (2008) 5 SCC 150. Extracting the ratio, the Court emphasized that when a complaint is addressed to a superior officer, it is that officer who is the competent authority to lodge a complaint under Section 182 IPC.

The Supreme Court had categorically held that Section 195 “contains a bar on the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence” and that when a complaint is not made by the appropriate public servant, “any trial held pursuant thereto would be wholly without jurisdiction.”

Justice Bhardwaj reiterated the Supreme Court’s reasoning that “it cannot be done by an inferior officer” and that the statute does not contemplate delegation of such power unless expressly provided.

Delegation of Power: Not an Incidental Authority

A key observation of the Court was that where the legislature intends to permit delegation, it expressly provides for the same. In the absence of such express provision under Section 195 Cr.P.C., no delegation can be assumed.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s exposition, the High Court noted that “a power to delegate, when a complete bar is created, must be express; it being not an incidental power.”

Thus, even if the SHO had acted under directions, that would not cure the statutory defect. The complaint must originate from the public servant concerned or his superior — not from a subordinate officer.

Proceedings Without Jurisdiction

Applying the settled law to the facts of the case, the Court held that the impugned Kalandra dated 31.10.2021 was without jurisdiction. Since cognizance under Section 182 IPC was taken on the basis of a complaint filed by an incompetent authority, the entire proceedings were vitiated.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the Kalandra and all consequential proceedings pending before the JMIC, Kurukshetra.

The judgment serves as a clear reminder that procedural safeguards under Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and jurisdictional. When the legislature creates a statutory bar to cognizance, strict compliance is essential. An inferior officer cannot assume the role of the “public servant concerned” merely because he conducted an inquiry.

By reiterating that statutory power cannot be delegated unless expressly authorized, the High Court has reinforced the principle that jurisdictional defects strike at the root of criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2026