2025:HHC:23411 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 702 of 2019 Reserved on: 27.06.2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 Shaligram Thakur ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated 07.01.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the objections to the cancellation report were dismissed. 2 2025:HHC:23411 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner/informant filed a complaint with the police, asserting that he was working as a Security Officer in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mandi, District Mandi. He was patrolling on 12.06.2011 at 5:30 p.m. He reached the Bus stand in Mandi and found a huge crowd of people. The police officials were also present. The petitioner/complainant accidently touched ASI Lal Chand’s shoulder while crossing the road. ASI Lal Chand pushed him. The informant fell. ASI Lal Chand gave him beatings and tore his clothes. The informant went to the Police Station, where he was locked up. The police abused him and kept him in lock up for the whole night. The police filed a false case against him. He was produced before the Court on 13.06.2021 and was released on bail. The police did not take any action on the complaint made by him. Hence, the petitioner/informant filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), asserting that he was beaten, abused and threatened by the police. The application was forwarded to the police for taking action as per the law. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted an investigation. The police submitted a final report asserting that no case was made 3 2025:HHC:23411 out after recording the statements of witnesses. Hence, it was prayed that the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner be cancelled. 3. The petitioner filed objections to the cancellation report, asserting that the police did not conduct a proper investigation. He prayed that the police be directed to carry out a proper investigation and file a charge sheet before the Court. 4. Learned Trial Court directed the police to carry out the investigation. The police conducted the investigation and submitted a report stating that no case was made out. The petitioner introduced witnesses whose names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were made out, which are non-cognisable. Hence, it was prayed that the final report be accepted and the FIR be cancelled. 5. The petitioner/informnat again filed the objections. Learned Trial Court held that no cognisable offence was made out against the accused after the investigation. Therefore, the cancellation report was accepted. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/informant has filed the present 4 2025:HHC:23411 petition asserting that the order is against the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The investigation was conducted by the police of the same Police Station against whom the complaint was made. A counter F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed. 7. The State has filed a reply reproducing the contents of the final report. It was asserted that the investigation was conducted by Inspector Bishan Dass, who was posted as In- charge Special Investigation Unit. The re-investigation was conducted by Ramphal Yadav, In charge of the Special Investigation Unit. ASI Lal Singh was not posted in the Police Station, but he was In charge of the traffic. No case was made out against the accused, and the final report was rightly accepted. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State. 5 2025:HHC:23411 9. Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court has wrongly accepted the cancellation report. An opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to present evidence. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zunaid vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2023 INSC 778 in support of his submission. 10. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the reposndnet/State, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint to the police did not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court by making improvements. These allegations were not established after the investigation. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully 12. It was held in Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1148, that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is the exception and not the rule. It was observed: 7. The scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr. P.C. has engaged this Court on numerous occasions [Ref: State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699; Sunder 6 2025:HHC:23411 Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 14 SCC 244; Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. (2017) 13 SCC 369; Ahmad Ali Quraishi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 13 SCC 435.] The observations made in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges encapsulate the purpose of this power most aptly in the following terms: “6. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for the proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully 7 2025:HHC:23411 and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent the promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of the court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 13. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The initial complaint made by the petitioner/informant reads that ASI Lal Chand pushed the informant, gave him beatings and tore his clothes. The petitioner went to the Police Station, where he was put behind the bars. A false case was registered against him. He was produced before learned Trial Court, and the learned Trial Court released him on bail. These allegations, even if accepted to be 8 2025:HHC:23411 correct, only show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, which is a non-cognisable offence. 15. The police recorded the statements of Gurmeet Singh, Hari Singh, Ritesh Kumar and police officials, who stated that the petitioner had picked up a quarrel with the police. He gave beatings to the police officials and abused them. These statements do not establish the version of the petitioner/informant; rather, these statements show that the petitioner was at fault. 16. The petitioner had made a prayer in the objections filed against the cancellation report that the SHO be directed to conduct a proper investigation in the matter and file a charge sheet against the accused. He never prayed to treat the protest petition as a private complaint; therefore, the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted for not treating the objections as a private complaint. 17. In any case, it is open to the petitioner to file a private complaint even after acceptance of the cancellation report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already clarified in Zunaid (supra) that the acceptance of the cancellation report 9 2025:HHC:23411 does not preclude the complainant from filing a private complaint regarding the same allegations. 18. Thus, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a private complaint, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court strictly as per law without being influenced by any observations made by this Court. 19. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands disposed of, and so are the miscellaneous applications, if any. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) 21st July 2025 Judge (ravinder)