2025:HHC:33348 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 875 of 2025 Reserved on: 12.9.2025 Date of Decision: 25.9.2025. Shivam Sood ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Rakesh Manta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of order dated 26.7.2025, passed by learned Special Judge-I, Shimla vide which the application filed under Section 250(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the charges were ordered to be framed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33348 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC & ST Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act. It was asserted that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) made a complaint to the police, asserting that she was serving in an institution being run by accused Dina Nath. He demanded a blank signed cheque from the victim, but she refused. He terminated her services. He started saying amongst the people that the victim belonged to a lower caste and did not possess good character. He created a fake Facebook profile and uploaded the indecent photographs of the victim on Facebook. He also showed these photographs to the people and defamed the victim. The victim opened an institute. She came in contact with Harish Rana (Nitu) and Anil Sood. They helped her initially. Anil Sood told the victim to reside with him as his wife and he would keep her like a queen; 3 2025:HHC:33348 otherwise, he would defame her. The victim protested. Anil Sood distributed the signed cheques issued by the victim to the people. He also obtained the signatures of the victim on an undertaking. Family members of Anil Sood and Harish Rana abused the victim in the name of her caste. Manoj, Piyush Rana and Ashok Sharma helped them. Anuj Shrivastva and his wife also abused the victim in the name of her caste. Sohan Lal, Dinesh Chandel, Vinod Kumar, Manish Shrivastva, Anita, Neri (Narinder Kumar), Rohit Chauhan, Kapil Chauhan and Renu also participated in the conspiracy. Anil Sood, Dina Nath Sharma and Harish Rana persuaded Ashok Kukreja, the landowner of the victim, to throw her out of the house. Ashok and Renu abused the victim in the name of her caste. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. Witness Bhupinder made a statement during the investigation that Shivam Sood (petitioner), Anuj Shrivastva, Seema Shrivastva and Anita had abused the victim by saying ‘Tum Koli Yahan Par Coaching Centre Chala Rahe Ho’ [You Koli (name of the caste) were running a Coaching Centre]. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he filed an 4 2025:HHC:33348 application seeking his discharge, asserting that the act done by the petitioner did not form part of the same transaction and a joint trial could not have been conducted. The essential ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act were not satisfied. The allegations were made with a mala fide intention to blackmail the petitioner and his parents. The victim wanted to avoid her financial liability. Hence, it was prayed that the accused be discharged. 4. The application was opposed by the State by asserting that sufficient material was collected to frame charges against the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 5. Learned Trial Court held that the Court has to prima facie assess the material collected by the prosecution and determine whether sufficient material existed for framing the charges. The defence of the accused was not to be seen. The statements made by the witnesses disclosed the prima facie involvement of the petitioner. The truthfulness or otherwise of the statements was not to be determined at the stage of framing charges. Therefore, the application was dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:33348 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the prosecution did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. The initiation of the criminal proceedings is manifestly actuated with mala fides. The criminal proceedings were initiated to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner’s father. The victim involved the petitioner and his mother to pressurise the petitioner’s father. The police did not find any incriminating material against the petitioner’s mother, and she was not arrayed as an accused. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 without any evidence. The allegations made by the victim are false and contradictory. She had filed many FIRs against multiple persons. The proceedings were quashed against Dinesh Chandel in Cr.MMO No. 439 of 2023, dated 29.8.2023, based on a compromise between him and the victim. The victim also lodged an FIR No. 19 of 2024 against the petitioner and other co-accused. The allegations made by her were found to be false after the investigation. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew the caste of the victim or had made any remarks denigrating her caste. The investigation was not conducted fairly. 6 2025:HHC:33348 The involvement of Sangeeta Sood, Arjun, Renu, Anita and Kapil Chauhan was not found after the investigation. The allegations made against the different accused related to different periods, and a joint trial was not permissible. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 7. I have heard. Mr Rakesh Manta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. 8. Mr Rakesh Manta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charges against the petitioner. The material collected by the prosecution does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court did not discuss the evidence and made a general observation that the material on record was sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner. The victim had not made any allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, and any subsequent incorporation of the petitioner’s name in the charge sheet is without jurisdiction. Therefore, he prayed 7 2025:HHC:33348 that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 9. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was named by an independent witness, Bhupinder. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the truthfulness or otherwise of the material collected by the prosecution is not to be seen at this stage. No jurisdictional error was committed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 11. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 502: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 that the Court framing the charges has to see a prima facie case. It is impermissible to examine the material threadbare to determine whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not. It was observed: - “12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record 8 2025:HHC:33348 need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of the prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion on the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to a conviction at the conclusion of the trial. 12. This position was reiterated in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520, wherein it was observed: 16. Section 227 CrPC deals with discharge. What Section 227 CrPC contemplates is that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In other words, the materials should be sufficient to enable the court to initiate a criminal trial against the accused. It may be so that at the end of the trial, the accused may still be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, the court is only required to consider whether there are sufficient materials which can justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a 9 2025:HHC:33348 discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on the benefit of doubt, or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused. 13. The present petition has to be adjudicated as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The victim had specifically stated in the FIR that all the accused had entered into a conspiracy to defame her and malign her character. All the accused abused the victim at the instigation of each other. The correctness of these allegations was not to be seen at this stage, as was rightly held by the learned Trial Court, but it is a matter of trial to be decided after leading the evidence. These allegations show that the accused were acting together, and they could be tried jointly. 15. The Police recorded the statement of Bhupinder Singh, who specifically stated that the petitioner, Anuj Shrivastva and Seema Shrivastva had abused the victim by saying, ‘Tum Koli Yahan Par Coaching Centre Chala Rahe Ho’. This statement shows that the petitioner had abused the informant in the name of her caste. The statement implied that the victim, being a member of 10 2025:HHC:33348 the scheduled caste, was incapable of running a coaching institute. The abuse in the name of the caste and the implication thereof clearly showed that the petitioner had prima facie committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of the SC & ST Act. 16. It was submitted that the allegations were made by the victim against the petitioner with mala fide intention to compel the petitioner’s father not to demand money from the victim. This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, that a complaint cannot be quashed because it was initiated due to enmity. It was observed: “30. The fact that the complaint may have been initiated because of a political vendetta is not in itself grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings, as observed by Bhagwati, CJ, in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 2884. It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. Though the view of Bhagwati, CJ, in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) was the minority view, there was no difference of opinion with regard to this finding. To quote Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, “If the use of power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object, the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal.” 11 2025:HHC:33348 Xxxx 39. In our considered opinion, criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such a possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after the closure of the earlier criminal case, cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue would have to be decided in the trial. In the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No. 19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” 17. Specific allegations were made against the petitioner/accused, and the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the accused could not be discharged. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 18. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12 2025:HHC:33348 19. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 25th September, 2025 (Chander)