1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 736 of 2024 Reserved on : 7.5.2025 Decided on : 4.7.2025 Daya Nand Kardam & ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing FIR No. 20 of 2024, dated 25.4.2024, under Sections 354-A, 354-D and 509 of IPC, registered with 2 Women Police Station, Solan, H.P., as well as, further proceedings in the FIR. 2. The FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings thereto, have been sought to be quashed on the ground that FIR is nothing, but abuse of process of law, which has been registered, on the basis of distorted facts. 3. The case, as set up by respondent No. 2/complainant, is stated to be a bundle of lies, as she is employee of Punjab National Bank and posted as Chief Manager, Circle Sastra, Solan and petitioners are also the officials of the bank. The allegations are also stated to be levelled without any substance and proof. 4. Respondent No. 2, as per the case set up by the petitioner, has earlier made the complaint on 1.3.2024 to the authorities of the Bank, on the similar allegations. The said complaint was referred to the Internal Complaint Committee of the bank authorities, where detailed inquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 26.6.2024. As per the report of the Committee, all the allegations were found to be false. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Police had conducted the investigation and nothing 3 was found against the petitioners, as such, cancellation report was submitted. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for. 6. When, put to notice, the respondent-State filed reply, in which, a stand has been taken that after registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and it was found that when respondent No. 2 was posted in Punjab National Bank at Nahan, her behaviour was not appropriate with the consumers. As such, the matter is stated to have been reported to the Circle Head at Solan. On inquiry, these allegations were found to be correct and she was transferred to PNB, Circle Office, Solan. 7. On the joining of the complainant at Solan, a dispute had arisen between her and the petitioners and respondent No. 2 started violating the orders of the Office and she was also in the habit of leaving the office, without any intimation. When, her explanation, in this regard, was called, she has started making complaints against the petitioners, before the Zonal Office. Thereafter, she filed the present complaint through zero FIR in Police Station, Basant Vihar, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, from where, the FIR 4 in question was transferred to Police Station, Sadar Solan, District Solan. 8. Cancellation report is now stated to be pending in the appropriate Court, on 15.7.2024. 9. In this factual background, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court is that when the petitioners have themselves asserted the fact that after the investigation, the Police has submitted the cancellation report, in that eventuality, how the relief, as claimed for, in the petition, can be granted to them. 10. The learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon the judgment dated 10.1.2025, passed by this Court in Cr. MMO No. 964 of 2024, titled as, ‘Anjum Ara & others versus State of H.P. & others, alongwith connected matter. The factual position, as involved in Anjum Ara’s case (supra), is entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. As such, no benefit could be derived by the petitioners, on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court, in Anjum Ara’s case (supra). 11. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A versus State of U.P. & 5 others, 2023 INSC 688 is concerned, with due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no benefit could be derived by the petitioner, as, in this case, cancellation report, has already been submitted by the Police, even before filing the present petition and similar stand has also been taken by the Police, in the reply. 12. Even otherwise, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to how the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal’s case (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. When, the cancellation report is pending in the competent Court of law, then, how the same can be said to be the abuse of the process of law, has not been explained in this case. 14. When, the petitioners were aware about the fact that cancellation report has been submitted by the Police, then, how the relief, as claimed, in this case, can be given to them, has not been explained. 15. Even otherwise, this Court in Cr. MMO No. 711 of 2025, titled as, ‘Vinod Kumar versus State of H.P. & 6 others’, decided on 30.6.2025, has already directed the Courts to decide the cancellation report, when submitted by the Police, within the stipulated period, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of service of complainant. 16. Consequently, there is no occasion for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioners. As such, the present petition is dismissed. 17. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 4, 2025 Kalpana