IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1907/2026 Decided on: 26.02.2026 Krishana Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner has essentially levelled allegations against her husband-Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who incidentally has not even been impleaded as party in the instant petition. The relief claimed is as under: - “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be kindly allowed and by issuing an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order and in particular by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or quo-warranto the respondents be directed to perform their duty and to ensure that no criminal acts are committed against the petitioner in respect of her dhaba and residence and proper suitable and legal action is taken for the protection of the life and property of the petitioner. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to transfer the investigation of F.I.R. No. 4 of 2026 dated 19.1.2026 registered with Police Station Manikaran at Kasol, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under sections 332(C), 115(2) and 351(2) of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 the B.N.S. to some, senior police official not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is further prayed that the police Officials of Police Station Manikaran at Kasol be restrained from giving illegal help and shelter to the culprits for the fulfillments of their illegal acts particularly the dispossession of the petitioner from her Namaste Dhaba and residence situate at Bhunter Manikaran Road, Kasol, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.” 2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she was married to Sh. Ramesh Kumar in the year 2006. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 19.05.2009. The relations between the petitioner and her husband became strained since the year 2008. Their daughter is stated to be living with the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that she is running her ‘dhaba’ over a land parcel standing in the name of the State Government in Village and Post Office Kasol, District Kullu. Petitioner’s grievance is that she has been running and also residing in the aforesaid ‘dhaba’ since 2013, but her husband has been unlawfully interfering with petitioner’s possession over the ‘dhaba’ and is also using criminal force against the petitioner and her staff; The petitioner has also lodged FIR No. 4 dated 19.01.2026 under Sections 332(C), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station Manikaran, against her husband; Instead of taking appropriate action against petitioner’s husband, the officials are 3 asking the petitioner to vacate the ‘dhaba’. Certain other factual assertions have also been made in the petition. 3. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that she has instituted a civil suit for grant of prohibitory injunction in her favour against her husband, wherein notice has been issued to petitioner’s husband. That being the position, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy by moving an appropriate application, in accordance with law, before the Civil Court. 4. In view of the remedy already invoked by the petitioner and the nature of the factual assertions & allegations levelled in the petition, this writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 26th February, 2026(rohit)