IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.594 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Pradeep Kumar Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.9.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in CIS Reg. No. 06 of 2019 (Regd. No.4 of 2019), titled as State v. Harbhaj Sharma and Ors., whereby prayer made by the petitioner (accused No.2-Pradeep Kumar Thakur) to discharge him for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 8 & 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR No.1 of 2016 dated 29.3.2016, came to be registered against the petitioner as well 2 as other co-accused by SV & ACB, Police Station Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, for their having allegedly forged the documents of registration of vehicles as well as issuance of driving licenses without there being any authority. 3. After completion of investigation, SHO SV&ACB, Kullu, presented charge sheet against the accused persons namely Harbhaj Sharma, Pradeep Kumar and Avinash Chander, Notary Public, for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 8 & 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Learned trial Court after having perused final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC, listed the matter for framing of charge on 16.9.2025, on which date, prayer came to be made by the petitioner as well as other co-accused for their discharge, however learned trial Court rejected their prayer for discharge, whereas 3rd accused Avinash Chander came to be discharged on account of protection granted to Notary Public under Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and discharge him. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein, who was only deputed for two 3 days for registration of licenses, has been falsely implicated, whereas RLA Kullu, who was otherwise competent authority to issue license has been not made accused. Mr. Palsra vehemently argued that learned trial Court has fallen in grave error by not considering the instructions contained in letter/instructions dated 25.8.2005 in its letter and spirit. He submitted that in terms afore instructions, no Driving License can be issued without conducting the proficiency test. He further submitted that as per State Motor Vehicle Rules, competent authority to conduct tests is a board of inspection consisting of RLAs and the MVIs. He submitted that since petitioner was not alone to conduct the test, rather same was conducted in presence of RLA and ultimately driving licenses were issued under the signature of RLA, there was no occasion, if any, to make the petitioner accused, rather RLA ought to have been arraigned as an accused. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner in connivance with co-accused No.1-Harbhaj Sharma, prepared, forged and fabricated the documents in order to use the same as genuine to get the vehicles registered and transferred with an ulterior motive to claim commission from the beneficiaries concerned. He further submitted that petitioner herein, who was MVI, was found to have 4 forged the documents/registration of vehicles and transferred ownership of Jeep No. HP 49A 0959 by forging signatures of Nirat Singh and Hem Singh. He further submitted that accused No.1 was also found to have got issued Driving License of one Smt. Kalyani Sharma, who did not know how to drive, but since petitioner, who was responsible for conducting Proficiency Driving Test, gave a false report, thereby passing above named person, RLA, Kullu, proceeded to issue license. He further submitted that in the case at hand, RLA concerned specifically denied of his having conducted Proficiency Driving Test. Lastly, Mr. Panwar, submitted that even if Gian Chand and RLA/SDM are not made accused in the case that is not sufficient to discharge the petitioner, against whom there is overwhelming evidence of forgery. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that FIR detailed herein above, was lodged on the pretext that One Maruti Car without number plate having one person inside it, was taken to Police Station on 29.3.2016 on the basis of secret information received by the police. Accused No.1 Harbhaj Sharma was found sitting in the said car and from car, many files were recovered during checking of the said vehicle. After verification of documents, it was found that accused No.2 Pradeep Kumar (petitioner herein), who had retired as Motor Vehicle Inspector connived with accused 5 No. 1 Harbhaj Sharma, and forged the documents of registration of vehicles and transferred the ownership of Jeep bearing registration No. HP 49A 0959 by forging signature of Nirat Singh and Hem Singh. 8. Accused No.1 Harbhaj was found to have got the ownership of Van bearing registration No. HP 01K 0165 transferred from Balvir Singh in the name of Hem Raj by preparing fake tax payment certificates/documents from Excise Department and on the basis of afore document, transferred the ownership of the afore vehicle by using the same as original. Similarly, petitioner herein being a public servant with an intention of providing undue advantage by misusing the position got the Driving License issued from RLA Kullu. Though Driving License on the recommendation of the committee headed by the SDM, was issued but person concerned did not pass any driving test. Though committee is comprised of RLA and MVI but RLA in the case at hand has specifically denied having conducted inspection as well as his presence on the given date. 9. In nutshell grouse of the petitioner is that since person namely Gian Chand and RLA/SDM who was otherwise responsible for issuance of Driving License have been not made accused, there was no occasion, if any, to arraign petitioner as an accused, who otherwise was given charge of MVI only for two days. Since it is not in dispute that accused No.2 (petitioner herein) was posted as MVI and in afore capacity, 6 he was otherwise under obligation to oversee the proficiency driving test of applicants conducted for issuance of Driving License coupled with the fact that RLA/SDM otherwise sought to be made accused has specifically denied factum of his having conducted proficiency test as well as his presence during proficiency test, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer made by the accused No.2 for discharge. 10. Careful perusal of police challan clearly reveals that accused NO.1 Harbhaj Sharma and accused No.2 Pradeep Kumar, were found in possession of some record of registration and transfer of the vehicle with RLA concerned and when these documents were verified, it transpired that accused No.1 signed on behalf of the other persons and also identified therein the alleged execution of various documents. Accused No.2 i.e. petitioner herein, who at the relevant time, was working as MVI registered and transferred the vehicle with RLA without following due process of law. 11. Though accused No.3 Avinash Chander being public notary also attested some documents/affidavits and he was also made accused but subsequently taking note of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, wherein protection has been granted to Notary Public, he was discharged vide order impugned in the instant proceedings. Sufficient evidence has been adduced on record against accused No.1 Harbhaj Sharma and present 7 petitioner and as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Palsra, that no case much less under aforesaid provisions of law is made out against the petitioner. 12. Non-arraignment of Gian Chand and RLA/SDM as an accused may not be sufficient to discharge the petitioner. Needless to say, trial court while exercising power under Section 319 of CrPC (now Section 358 of BNSS), can always proceed to make aforesaid person as an accused in case evidence of their having committed forgery in connivance with the petitioner as well as other co-accused Harbhaj comes to the fore, but certainly their non-impleadment as an accused, at this stage, may not be a ground for the petitioner as well as other co-accused to seek discharge. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, preset petition fails and dismissed along with pending applications. March 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge