Nirmaljit Kaur, J.-

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of Calendra u/s 182/211 IPC titled as "State through Beant Juneja SI/SHO PS Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana v. Neeraj Jain" dated 20.11.2009 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted an application dated 07.03.2007 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, on the basis of which an FIR No.135 dated 28.07.2007 under Sections 447, 448, 511, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana against Narinder Kapoor s/o Jagdish Rai Kapoor and Ashok Jindal s/o Jagan Nath Jindal. The same is placed on record as Annexure P-1. The said FIR was registered after conducting an enquiry by Superintendent of Police City-I. Thereafter, the police conducted an investigation and in pursuant thereto a cancellation report dated 30.04.2008 was prepared by the police on the basis of the fact that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and does not require any interference by police. The said cancellation report, which was based on the fact that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, was presented in Court and was accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide Order dated 29.10.2008. After the cancellation of the FIR No.135 dated 29.10.2008 vide Order dated 29.10.2008, the SHO of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana prepared the present Calendra under Section 181/211 IPC.

3. While praying for quashing of Calendra u/s 182/211 IPC, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Calendra was liable to be quashed as the cancellation report was accepted only on the ground that the allegation in the FIR is of Civil nature and does not require police intervention. As such, it cannot be said that the allegations were false.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the cancellation report having been accepted by the trial Court, the petitioner was rightly proceeded under Section 181/211 IPC. While accepting the cancellation report, the trial Court has specifically stated that no such incident/occurrence has taken place and as such, the allegations levelled by the petitioner were false. Therefore, the Calendra was rightly filed under Section 181/211 IPC.

Heard.

5. For proper adjudication of the dispute, in hand, as to whether the Calendra has been rightly instituted against the petitioner or not, it would be relevant to reproduce the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana dated 29.10.2008, vide which, the cancellation report was accepted. The operative part of the said Order reads as under :-

"A perusal of the police file reveals that the accused Narinder Kapoor has also been claiming ownership rights over the plot in question and a civil suit is pending in the Court of Shri Kuldeep Singh Cheema, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana. Since after inquiry, the S.P.(H), Khanna has categorically held that no such incident/occurrence had taken place and the matter between the parties requires adjudication by Civil Court, therefore, in these circumstances, I find no fault in the investigation and the police authorities have rightly commenced the cancellation of the FIR in this case."

6. From the perusal of the above Order, it is evident that the cancellation report was accepted on the ground that the matter requires to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Thus, the Civil Court has yet to adjudicate on the disputed question. No doubt, the trial Court has referred to the report of the S.P.(H), Khanna, wherein, he has stated that no such incident/occurrence had taken place but the said Order has to be read in toto. The later part of the said Order specifically states that the said matter between the parties requires adjudication by the Civil Court. The fact remain that the police had recommended the cancellation of FIR only on the fact that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Thereby admitting that there is a dispute between the parties. There is no mention in the Calendra that the petitioner had made a false report to the police. Moreover, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 07.03.2007 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana for lodging an FIR against the accused persons and the FIR No.135 dated 28.07.2007 was registered after conducting an enquiry by the police. Therefore, once the police itself has lodged the FIR after conducting the enquiry, it does not lie in the mouth of the same police to file the said Calendra on the ground that the allegations are fake specially when the cancellation report is recommended by the same police on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and Calendra u/s 182/211 IPC titled as "State through Beant Juneja SI/SHO PS Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana v. Neeraj Jain" dated 20.11.2009 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are, hereby, quashed.

Petition allowed.