2025:HHC:17932 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9523 of 2025 Decided on: 06.06.2025 Satya Devi … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the impugned order dated 24.9.2021 Annexure P- 9 being illegal and unjust and arbitrary is liable to be quashed and may very kindly be quashed. ii) That respondent no. 4 may be directed to re-open the case of the husband of the petitioner bearing Case no. 157-IV/2021 titled as State Vs. Partap Chand and proceedings may very kindly be ordered to be initiated against the respondent no.5 in accordance with the law as per the Registral procedure envisaged further, the directions may kindly be issued for respondent no.4 to decide the complaint case on merits within time bound period. iii) That the an appropriate action is sought against the respondent no.4 for, (i) misguiding and misinforming the respondent no.3 vide its reply dated 20.12.23 and (ii) against the dealing hand in the office of respondent no.4 for not apprising the complainant about his case and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:17932 failing to supply the copy of order dated 24.9.2021 despite his persistence demands until the complainant exercised RTI, Act (iii) as also for threatening the counsel of the complainant for pursuing his complaint against the respondent no.4.” 2. In the light of the fact that the order that has been assailed before this Court has been passed by the Authority by exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be allowed to be assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same has to be challenged under the procedural law which conferred the power upon the Authority to pass the order. 3. 3. At this stage, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn, but with liberty to assail the order, if so advised, under the appropriate provisions of the procedural law concerned. 4. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 06, 2025 (Rishi)