1  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.798 of 2022 Reserved on:- 07.05.2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025 Dhananjay Puri & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2/State. Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to refer as the Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to quash FIR No.79 of 2022, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR in question), dated 05.06.2022, registered under Sections 341, 354, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), with Police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., on the 2  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) ground that dispute involved in the said case is purely civil in nature. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are permanent residents of the addresses, as mentioned in the petition. They are residing in the half portion of the ground floor of two storeyed building, constructed over land bearing Khata- Khatauni No. 30/34, Khasra No.278, situated at Up Mohal Tara Hall, Shimla (Urban), District Shimla, H.P., total measuring 70- 81 Sq. meters, known as Errin Villa. The said ground floor is owned by the brother-in-law of the petitioners Sanjeev Vermani and the half share of the building was purchased by Sanjeev Vermani by way of registered sale deed dated 06.01.2004. Half portion of the ground floor, comprised in Khasra No.278, is in occupation and possession of petitioners and their family members. 3. According to the petitioners, the approach to the house of the petitioners is through adjacent Khasra No.280, measuring 34-14 Sq. mtrs, which is ‘Gair Mumkin Sahen’, jointly owned by Madan son of Bhagat Ram and Gaurav Budhraja, respondent No.3, who is also owner of the built up structure of the adjacent Khasra No.279. Khasra No.280 has been merged with Khasra No.281, which is owned and 3  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) possessed by the petitioners and they are using the same as entrance to their house. Area of Khasra No.280 in the nature of ‘Gair Mumkin Sahen’, which is an open space, and the only approach to the house of the petitioners, situated over Khasra No.278. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 is suffering from uncurable skin disease, for which, he is under treatment from the PGI, Chandigarh and the doctor has advised him to take natural sunlight in order to avoid his deteriorating skin condition. As per advice of the medical professionals, petitioner No.2, is basks in the sun daily, in the land, bearing Khasra No.280, which is ‘Gair Mumkin Sehan’. 5. According to the petitioners, in the month of May, 2013, a civil dispute had arisen between the petitioners and respondent No.3, with regard to the peaceful usage and easmentary rights of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.280 and 281. Thereafter, civil suit was filed against respondent No.3 for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining him from causing any obstruction/blocking the passage, by way of erection of any structure including angle irons and angles nets. 6. The said suit is stated to be pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.6, Shimla and is 4  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) fixed for evidence of respondent No.3. In the said suit, application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed which was allowed, vide order dated 18.07.2013 by directing both the parties to maintain status quo. 7. Against the said status quo order, respondent No.3 had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla, however, his appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2014. 8. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.3, in order to create/manufacture the evidence, to be adduced, in Civil Suit No.53/1 of 2013, lodged a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint, upon which the police had registered FIR No.79 of 2022, dated 05.06.2022, registered under Sections 341, 354, 506 & 34 of IPC with Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, against the petitioners. 9. As per the stand taken by the petitioners, FIR, so registered, against them does not disclose any cognizable offence. The contents of the FIR are stated to be vague and cryptic and being lodged against the senior citizens(petitioners), with a sole motive and intention to create evidence. 10. It is the specific case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 is trying to give criminal colour to the dispute, 5  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) which is purely civil in nature, as injunction order is operating against respondent No.3. 11. It is the further case of the petitioners that no offence is made out in the said FIR, as the same does not disclose a cognizable offence. 12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the FIR in question. 13. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the reply, disclosing therein, that on the complaint of respondent No.2, commission of the cognizable offence was found, as such, FIR in question was registered. Statements of the witnesses got recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of Smt. Mona Budhraja, wife of respondent No.3 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., by producing her, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Shimla. During investigation, it was found that petitioner No.2, used to sit in sun in bare clothes (underwear) and Dhananjay Puri, son of petitioner No.1, used to tie their dog in the passage. 14. It is the further case of respondents No.1 and 2 that notices under Section 41A have been served upon the petitioners. 6  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) 15. Respondent No.3 has also filed the reply by taking the stand, as taken in the civil suit. 16. The petitioners are seeking the quashing of FIR in question. The FIR in question has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-8. The contents of the same are reproduced, as under:- “To The S.P. Shimla, Sub:- Complaint about unauthorised use of property situated at Errin Villa, Circular Road, Shimla-171001, Khasra No.280, Up Mahal, Tara Hall. Sir/Madam, I have to submit that I am the owner and in possession of the property that is situated at Errin Villa, Circular Road, Shimla. 171001, Khasra No. 278,279, 280, 282 UP Mahal Tara Hall, abutting / adjoining to my said property there is a Courtyard (Sehan recorded in the revenue records), the said courtyard is specifically entered against Khasra No. 280 Up Mahal Tara Hall and the said courtyard is in my exclusive ownership & possession. That, my neighbours namely Smt. Harbans Kaur Wife of Praveen Kumar do reside alongwith her family in another part of Errin Villa Building, which is specifically entered against different Khasra No. I, do not reside permanently at Shimla and in my absence they started using my Courtyard for passage only despite the fact that there was no passage from any part of my Courtyard entered against Khasra No. 7  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) 280. That in the year 2013, I started work of re- erecting/repair of the old fencing, which had outlived its life and my said neighbour Smt. Harbans Kaur alongwith Sanjeev Vermani filed a complaint in the court claiming right of passage, only, through my above mentioned Courtyard. I do visit Shimla regularly though I do not reside permanently here. Most of the time I do visit Shimla with my family and staff. That on 30th May 2022, I came to Shimla alongwith my wife and staff, I was shocked to see that Smt. Harbans Kaur & her family had put up bedsheets, clothes & towels of her house and her B&B unit which she is running, over my Courtyard ralling causing a lot of Inconvenience and annoyance and blocking our right of way. Smt. Harbans Kaur is not the owner of any part of Errin Villa Building, it is Sanjeev Vermani's Property who is permanent resident of Delhi. That on seeing the bedsheets, towels, clothes etc. on railing of my Courtyard I started looking at my property with purpose to ascertain its condition, and I found that Smt. Harbans Kaur and her family had blocked my gate with purpose to block my passage, namely cause annoyance to me and my wife and attempt to commit trespassing in my property. There is only one entrance to Errin Villa Building Ground Floor which is from the gate built on Khasra No. 281. My gate built upon Khasra No. 280 is for my exclusive use to use the Courtyard. Day before yesterday the Son of Smt. Harbans Kaur started parking his motorcycle registration number HP-03C-4540 in front of my kitchen door. Whenever we come to Shimla the son of Smt. Harbans Kaur does this mischievous activity 8  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) of parking his vehicle in front of our kitchen door. Smt. Harbans Kaur and her family quiet often keep their Dog outside the gate towards my Courtyard by using chain to tie the dog with sole motive of trying to restrain our lawful way which is restricted and we will not be able to use our property and there is always threat & danger to my life & safety & life & safety of my family and staff members due to the tying of the dog on the gate. There is one emergency entrance to my building which is from my kitchen and the approach is from Khasra No. 280 to my kitchen. Since Smt. Harbans Kaur & her family members are trying to obstruct/ restrain my passage from the main entrance by blocking our way to the gate we are left with no option except to use the entrance from my kitchen. That the Husband of Smt. Harbans Kaur namely Shri Praveen Kumar on the instigation of Smt. Harbans Kaur with motive to restrain us from using our property, do indulge in obscene activities. When on May 30th 2022, I arrived at Shimla alongwith my family & staff Shri Praveen Kumar used to do obscene activities in my Courtyard and whenever my wife used to visit the proximity of the Courtyard and whenever he saw that we have come to Shimla, he sits in Naked condition only in his underwear and does oil massage with the sole motive that on seeing him we will not go to that side of Courtyard, photographs of such obscene activities have been attached all these activities are visible from my Balcony, Terrace, Corridor on the First floor, Dining room this act is not only to outrage the modesty but also obscene & obnoxious and has caused mental agony & mental harassment to me 9  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) and my wife. Said Smt. Harbans Kaur and her family used to indulge in such unlawful activities in the past also and I had reported the matter with the police. Shri Praveen Kumar is also stalking us, as everything is visible from outside into my dining room. He also makes obscene gestures towards my wife whenever she goes to the terrace. When I was clicking his Naked and obscene photographs as evidence he threatened me to do away with my life. I have been attacked earlier also by Smt. Harbans Kaur's sons the complaint of which was made in the year 2013 at Sadar Police Station. All the above harassment is being done with the sole motive and intention to make us try and sell our property to them. I am attaching photographs 8 No's alongwith this complaint of mine, so kindly take appropriate action against Smt. Harbans Kaur & her family members by registering of F.I.R. against them, area in question falls within the jurisdiction of Sadar Police Station. There is an eminent threat to my life & safety and the life & safety of my family & staff. Matter may kindly be investigated properly & the above said persons may be booked for the offences. Thanking you in anticipation. Sd/- Gaurav Budhraja” 17. After registration of the FIR in question, the police has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners, under Sections 354, 506 and 34 of IPC. 18. Now, the petitioners are before this Court for quashing of the said FIR, mainly on the ground that FIR in 10  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) question has been registered against them, on account of civil dispute, which is pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, between the parties. 19. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the year 1992, in the case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, reported as 1992 CrLJ, 527, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:- “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at 11  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate with the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FLR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only. a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 12  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 20. This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:- 38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under: “5. 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 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 13  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) for 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 course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa 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 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 advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of 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 14  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) 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. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death….. 8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based 15  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, 16  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” 21. It is no longer res integra that at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court cannot assume the powers of the appellate/revisional Court, nor, this Court can act as trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Another versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, reported as (2019) 10 SCALE 239. Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:- 17  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) “15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.” 22. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar & Others versus State of Bihar & Another, reported as (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241. 23. Being guided by the above settled proposition of law, now, this Court would proceed further to ascertain the facts, whether, on the basis of the pendency of the civil proceedings, the FIR in question, can be quashed. 24. As per documents placed on record, the civil suit was filed in the year 2013 and the stay application was decided by the competent Court on 18.07.2013. The civil suit was instituted by the petitioners, against respondent No.3-Gaurav Budhraja. The suit was filed by Sanjeev Vermani through his GPA Harbans Kaur. 25. Initially, the present petition has been filed by Harbans Kaur wife of Praveen Puri, however, during the 18  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) pendency of the lis, before this Court, an application bearing Cr.MP No.3535 of 2024, was moved, which was decided by this Court on 12.03.2025 and the name of Harbans Kaur has been ordered to be deleted and the same was substituted by the name of Dhananjay Puri son of petitioner No.2-Praveen Puri. Now, the sons of Shyam Lal Puri are the petitioners. 26. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint shows that the civil dispute between the parties has been reiterated. 27. In addition to this, he has got lodged that whenever, they used to come to Shimla, the son of Harbans Kaur does this mischievous activities of parking his vehicle in front of their kitchen door and Harbans Kaur and her family quite often keep their dogs outside the gate, towards the Courtyard of the complainant by using the chain to tie the dog with sole motive of trying to restrain their lawful way, which is restricted and they will not be able to use the property, whereas, admittedly, the stay is operating against respondent No.3, as depicted from the order passed by the Civil Court, dated 18.07.2013, Annexure P- 6. The operative portion of the order dated 18.07.2013, is reproduced as under:- “Hence in view of the aforesaid, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua obstruction/blocking 19  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) the passage by way of erecting the angel iron nets or in any other manner situated on the land comprised in Khasra No.280, Khata Khatauni No.27/31, Khasra No.281, Up Mohal Tara Hall, Tehsil and District Shimla, either himself, his agents, contractor, labourers etc till final disposal of the main suit. Application disposed of accordingly. File after due completion be tagged with main case file.” 28. The said order has been upheld by the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, vide judgment dated 18.01.2014. 29. At the cost of repetition, FIR in question, has been lodged by respondent No.3, mainly, on the ground of pendency of the civil litigation, by mentioning, the history of the same and thereafter, the allegations of obscene act have been levelled. Those allegations “to sit in the open inseminate condition and to do oil massage” do not qualify the bare ingredients of Section 354 of IPC. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature, but, has been given the disguise of the criminal offence with a vailed object. 30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra versus State of Uttarakhand and others, reported as (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673, has held that where, a dispute is 20  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) essentially of a civil nature, which has been given cloak of a criminal offence, High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Relevant paragraph 12 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court”. 31. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another versus Sudha Seetharam and another, reported as (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 739 has held that it is the duty of High Court to examine, whether, a matter which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of a criminal offence and if, the required ingredients to 21  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) constitute criminal offence are not made out, then, the same will be nothing, but, the abuse of the process of the Court. Relevant paragraph 27 is reproduced as under:- “27. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the actions of the first respondent constitute an abuse of process of the court. It is contended that the present dispute is of a civil nature and the first respondent has attempted to cloak it with a criminal flavor to harass the aged appellants. It is also contended that there is an undue delay in filing the complaint from which the present appeal arises, and this demonstrates the mala fide intention of the first respondent in filing the complaint against the appellants. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy. In that case, the prosecution alleged that eight of the accused had conspired to kill the complainant. The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that no sufficient ground was made out against the accused. A three Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by the State with the following observations:(SCC p.703, para 7)”. “7…In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or 22  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.” 32. A feeble attempt has also been made, when respondent No.3 has alleged against the petitioners that Praveen Kumar-petitioner No.2, used to sit in naked condition, only in his underwear and massage oil with a sole motive, that on seeing him, complainant party will not go to that side of Courtyard. The allegations, so levelled, in the complaint, if seen, in the light of civil dispute, pending between the parties, as held in the earlier part of the judgment, ingredients of the offence have not been proved and it can easily be held that the same are levelled, just to achieve the goal, as sought to be achieved, in the civil litigation. 33. General allegations have been levelled with a motive to clothe the civil dispute, with the criminal proceedings. The allegations, which have been levelled are the reiteration of the civil dispute, which has been presented, in a new Avatar by adding the allegations with regard to the alleged obscene activities of petitioner No.2. 23  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) 34. In the complaint, simply, it has been mentioned that on 30.05.2022, when he came to Shimla, then Praveen Kumar allegedly started doing the obscene activities. 35. For lodging the simple matter, the complainant took about five days, as the matter has been reported to the police on 18.06.2022. 36. The matter can be seen from another angle. The pendency of the civil proceedings, between the parties may give a party to the lis to commit offence, due to the grudge, on account of pendency of the civil dispute and it will also give the party to such lis to lodge criminal proceedings, in order to settle the civil dispute by pressurizing such party, each case is to be seen, according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 37. In this case, the FIR, has been lodged by mentioning the factual position regarding the pendency of the civil dispute and with a view to clothe those proceedings with criminal proceedings. Vague allegations against petitioner No.2 have been levelled by alleging that he used to sit in semi-naked condition in the open Courtyard and used to bask in the sun. If criminal proceedings of such allegations are permitted to be continued, it would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 24  ( 2025:HHC:26594 ) 38. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.79 of 2022, dated 05.06.2022, registered with Police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 341, 354, 506 & 34 of IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, are ordered to be quashed. 39. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge August 06, 2025 (subhash)