Deepak Malhotra & Anr. v. State through SHO P.S. Inderpuri & Ors., CRL.M.C. 2327/2025, Delhi High Court (Justice Madhu Jain), decided on 06.10.2026 | Citation: 2026:DHC:8777
The Delhi High Court has held that a magistrate cannot take cognizance of false-complaint offences under Sections 182 and 211 IPC just because the police filed a “Kalandra” (a report seeking action) against the complainants, as these offences need a written complaint from the public servant or court concerned.
Deepak Malhotra and Ruchi Malhotra bought two flats in Inderpuri, Delhi, in 2009 from Prem Singh and Bhupinder Kaur. They alleged that the sellers hid the fact that the building was already mortgaged to Union Bank of India. They found out about the mortgage only in 2013, when the bank took possession and auctioned the property. A magistrate ordered an FIR for cheating in 2016, but the police investigated and filed a cancellation report. They found that Deepak Malhotra had introduced the seller to the bank for the loan, was present when the credit facility was processed, and wrote to the bank in 2010 about the debt recovery case and paid Rs 1 lakh. They also filed a Kalandra against the Malhotras for knowingly filing a false complaint. In 2023, the magistrate accepted the cancellation report, dismissed the Malhotras’ protest petition and took cognizance of Sections 182 and 211 IPC against them. Justice Madhu Jain upheld the acceptance of the cancellation report, because a prior mortgage by itself does not prove cheating, and the material showed that the buyers knew about it. However, she set aside the cognizance under Sections 182/211, holding that Section 195 CrPC bars it unless the concerned public servant or court files a written complaint. Section 182 needs a complaint from the public servant concerned. Section 211 offences connected to court proceedings need a complaint from the court itself, and here the allegedly false complaint also went before the magistrate under Section 156(3). The magistrate’s order did not even say how Section 195 was satisfied. The court clarified that quashing the Kalandra does not affect the acceptance of the cancellation report.