SURESHWAR THAKUR ,J.

1. Through the instant petition, cast under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner makes a prayer for quashing of Kalandra of 16.6.2020, as carried in Annexure P-9, constituting therein an offence carried in Section 182 IPC, registered at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur, and, also of all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Moreover, a prayer is also made in the instant petition, for the quashing of Annexure P-7, Annexure whereof, embodies an order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, wherethrough he directed the issuance of a notice to the accused, returnable for 6.8.2020, rather in pursuance to the kalandra/complaint, being presented before him, on 17.7.2020.

2. Since the offence constituted under Section 182 IPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, embody thereins the imperative ingredients, hence necessarily becoming embodied in the kalandra/complaint, rather for prima facie the kalandra becoming construed to be laden with truth. The essential statutory ingredients are qua the information given to a public servant, by the informant concerned, if purveyed, with the relevant mens rea, comprised in the informant knowing or believing to be false, and, leading the public servant concerned, to draw an action against the accused concerned, which action is otherwise not drawable against him, given the information revealed to the public servant, is known by the informant, to be false or believed by him, to be false. Consequently, the hereinafter extracted penal inculpation is drawable against the accused concerned.

Section 182 IPC

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, 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.

2. In addition, if the informant with the above mens rea, makes a public servant to omit to anything, if the truth, with respect to the information concerned, were already known to the informant concerned, besides the afore false information is known to be, or believed to be false, by the informant concerned, rather leading the public servant, through using his lawful power, to cause injury to any person, thereupon, too the offence embodied in Section 182 IPC, may become committed by the informant concerned. The making of the afore import or of the nuance, as carried by the mandate of Section 182 of the IPC, leads this Court to also gather the genesis of the kalandra/complaint, hence carrying thereins the above offence, kalandra whereof became instituted before the learned Magistrate concerned.

3. The apposite genesis is carried in Annexure P-2, which became addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Sangrur, by the petitioner herein, alleging thereins the commission of an offence of extortion by the private respondent concerned, and, also contains allegations against one Judicial Officer, namely, Sunil Jindal qua his abusing his position, for either making extortions or his facilitating the extortions from the commercial establishment concerned, owned as sole proprietor by the petitioner herein, namely, one Madan Lal. The date of drawing of Annexure P-2 is 5.12.2019. The afore annexure led the respondent concerned, to through Annexure P-6, move the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Sangrur, for initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC, against the petitioner herein, and, Annexure P-6 became founded upon the factum of the petitoner herein making a false complaint with false information(s) thereins. Therefore, it was contended that Annexure P-2, is laden with untruth, and, may lead the public servant concerned, to draw actions thereons against the respondents concerned, despite the petitioner herein holding the requisite mens rea, inasmuch as his knowing or believing that Anneuxre P-2 is false, besides Annexure P-2 also may be leading the public servant concerned, to draw action upon Annexure P-2, wherethrough, rather unwanted or uncalled for injury or annoyance may become caused to the respondents concerned. After Annexure P-6 becoming inquired into, it resulted in the making of Annexure P-8. The operative part of Annexure P-8 is extracted hereinafter.

“The enquiry of complaint under subject bearing No. 13074/P dated 06.12.2019 given by Madan Lal abovesaid has been conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Dhuri and during enquiry the same is found to be false. Therefore as per the enquiry report of complaint No. 13074/P dated 6.12.2019 moved by Madan Lal son of Ram Ji Dass resident of house No. 51, Ward No. 4-B near Gaushala Gate, Malerkotla road Dhuri against Rattan Pal son of Ramji Dass resident of Mahesh Nagar, near Sanatan Dharam Dhuri, Sunil Jindal son of Rattan Lal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haryana and as per the contents of complaint No. 4946/P dated 10.6.2020 moved by Rattan Pal son of Ramji Dass resident of Mahesh Nagar, near Sanatan Dharam Dhuri, the action under Section 182 IPC is to be taken against Madan Lal abovesaid. Therefore, the Kalandra under Section 182 IPC has been prepared against Madan Lal abovesaid, which will be filed before the Hon'ble Court.”

4. Subsequently, the complaint/kalandra in tandem therewith became presented before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, upon the presentation of kalandra, before him, on 17.7.2020, the learned Magistrate concerned, ordered for issuance of notice upon the accused, and, it was made returnable on 06.8.2020. When the lis became listed on 06.8.2020, rather for want of the accused becoming validly served, thereupon, a fresh notice to the accused, was ordered to be issued for 14.8.2020. The afore made orders are challenged in the petition, and, they are asked to be quashed, and, annulled.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with much vigour, that the complaint/kalandra is infirm, as it has been presented by the SHO of the police station concerned, whereas, it was required to be presented under the signatures of the SSP, Sangrur, moreso, when the complaint, comprised in Annexure P-2, was made before the SSP, Sangrur. Therefore, it is contended that all the subsequent thereto proceedings, as arise therefrom, are amenable for being quashed, and, set aside. In making the afore submission, reliance has been placed upon a judgment, rendered by this Court in case titled 'Babita versus State of Punjab and another' bearing Criminal Misc. No. 49179-M of 2003. However, the afore made argument is bereft of any vigour, as a perusal of the reply on affidavit, as furnished to the petition by co-respondents No. 5 and 6, reveals that the complaint concerned, became signed, and, signatured by the SSP, Sangrur, and, thereafter it became presented before the learned Magistrate concerned, for the latter assuming jurisdiction, and, taking cognizance thereons. The relevant portion of the reply on affidavit, furnished by co-respondents No. 5 and 6, to the petition, is reproduced hereinafter.

“The enquiry of complaint under subject given by Madan Lal abovesaid has been conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Dhuri and during enquiry the same is found to be false. Therefore as per the enquiry report of complaint No. 13074/P dated 6.12.2019 moved by Madan Lal son of Ram Ji Dass resident of house No. 51, Ward No. 4-B near Gaushala Gate, Malerkotla road Dhuri against Rattan Pal son of Ramji Dass resident of Mahesh Nagar, near Sanatan Dharam Dhuri, Sunil Jindal son of Rattan Lal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haryana and as per the contents of complaint No. 4946/P dated 10.6.2020 moved by Rattan Pal son of Ramji Dass resident of Mahesh Nagar, near Sanatan Dharam Dhuri, the action under Section 182 IPC is to be taken against Madan Lal abovesaid. Kalandra by Station House Officer, Police Station City Dhur, has been prepared and presented for hearing in your Court. Hearing/trial may kindly be held and suitable punishment be given to respondent Madan Lal above said.

That I Sandeep Garg, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, cannot pursue the said Kalandra in your Hon'ble Court due some official assignments. So it is requested that some Government Counsel be appointed to pursue the said case. List of witnesses is attached with the Kalandra.

-Sd

Senior Superintendent of Police

Sangrur”

6. However, yet the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the impugned orders (supra), are bereft of sound application of judicial mind upon the complaint/kalandra, and, in making the afore submission, he rests it, upon, the factum that the apposite orders are cryptic, and, that no valid reasons occur therein rather for sustaining any inference, that the complaint after becoming keenly, and, incisively hence becoming gauged, and, analyzed by the learned Magistrate concerned, his proceeding to either issue summons or notice to the accused, and, making them returnable on the respective dates.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner supports, the afore submission, through his making reliance on a verdict made by this Court, in case titled 'Varinder Mohan versus State of Punjab and another', bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-28851 of 2006. In verdict (supra), the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, as became challenged therein, becomes extracted hereinafter.

“Kalandra presented today. It be registered. Let notice to accused be issued for 12.8.2005.”

8. This Court, had in respect of the afore order, which is almost similar in phraseology to the orders impugned before this Court, proceeded to conclude, that there were omissions on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, to make a profound application of judicial mind to the apposite kalandra/complaint, and, therefore, proceeded to quash the above extracted order, and, also proceeded to remand the apposite lis to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, to enable him re-apply his judicial mind to the complaint/calandra, and, thereafter obviously a latitude became reserved to the learned Magistrate concerned, to issue fresh summons, and/or, notice to the accused concerned.

9. Though, prima facie, the above similarity inter se the orders, challenged before this Court, and, the order which became challenged in the verdict (supra), does constrain this Court, to accept the submission (supra), as made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, for the reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, even the above submission becomes unhinged, from a verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex court in case titled 'Bhushan Kumar and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and others bearing Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2012, whereins, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9, and, 10, paras whereof stand extracted hereinafter, has propounded a mandate, that Section 204 Cr.P.C., does not cast, any mandate upon the Magistrate concerned to explicitly state, the reasons for the issuance of summons, rather the statutory provisions, clearly underline, that if the opinion of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient grounds for proceeding, then the summons may be issued.

“9. A summon is a process issued by a Court calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his legal obligation to appear before the Magistrate as a response to violation of law. In other words, the summons will announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person and the date and time on which the person must appear in Court. A person who is summoned is legally bound to appear before the Court on the given date and time. Willful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for contempt of court.

10. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued.”

10. Moreover, it has also been propounded thereins, that in the process of the Magistrate concerned, rather forming an opinion, as to whether there exist sufficient grounds for the summons being issued, obviously enjoin(s) him or require(s) him to make the keenest application of judicial mind to the presented before him kalandra, but there is no imperative statutory injunction cast upon the Magistrate concerned, to make an explicit narration, rather of the reasons, which prevail upon him, in his making an opinion about the necessity of issuance of summons/notice, upon, the accused concerned. Therefore, the orders made respectively, on 17.7.2020, and, on 6.8.2020, though do not carry an explicit narration(s) of the reasons prevailing upon the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, in his forming an opinion, qua the necessity of issuance of summons, upon the accused in pursuance to the kalandra/complaint being filed before him. However, the afore lack of explicit expression of reasons, in the summoning order, does not per se, defeat the opinion taken by the learned Magistrate concerned, to issue summons upon the accused concerned. Therefore, even if the summoning orders concerned, are cryptic, yet the said fact does not per se impinge upon the validity of the impugned orders. Consequently also the summoning orders cannot be construed to be lacking in validity, unless evidence became adduced, suggestive of the fact, that the learned Magistrate concerned, had, without reading or analysing the complaint concerned, had rather in a slipshod, and, arbitrary manner or in a mechanical manner, proceeded to issue summons upon the accused. However, the apposite evidence is obviously amiss.

11. Be that as it may, even in the verdict (supra), as made by this Court in Varinder Mohan's case (supra), rather the view, as carried thereins, is completely different, from the view, expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar's case (supra). Even otherwise, the view expressed by this Court in Varinder Mohan's case (supra), does not fully succour the arguments, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as in verdict (supra), this Court had also proceeded to remand the lis to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, to re-apply his judicial mind qua the complaint concerned, and, obviously thereafter a latitude became reserved to him, to issue summons upon the accused concerned.

12. In consequence, there is no merit in the petition, and, it is hereby dismissed. The impugned orders are maintained. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court concerned.