IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 765 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Chander Kanta Chandel and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Surat Ram …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Divyaraj Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of complaint No. 3-2024, titled as Surat Ram v. Soda Devi and Ors., having been filed by the complainant under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC along with consequential proceedings i.e. orders dated 25.6.2025, 15.7.2025 and 30.7.2025, pending before the learned 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that respondent No.1-Surat Ram, lodged a private complaint under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, against the petitioners herein as well as three other persons namely Smt. Soda Devi & Sh. J.R. Bhardwaj, who are stated to be dead and Reader to the Tehsildar Theog (Annexure P-1), in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, alleging therein that accused persons forged zimini order dated 24.4.2014 to made it look like that case was adjourned to 25.4.2014, whereas on the relevant date, afore case was adjourned to 10.6.2014. It is further averred in the complainant that he is having a civil litigation regarding immovable property with accused No.1-Smt. Soda Devi, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Theog, alleging therein that afore accused usurped half share of the property on the basis of forged will. Complaint regarding forgery and cheating against the aforesaid accused No.1-Smt. Soda Devi, is pending adjudication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla. Complainant alleged that without proper demarcation/partition, above named Soda Devi sold 00-37-54 hectares of land to the petitioners herein, 3 who otherwise happen to be husband and wife. Case of the partition is pending before Tehsildar Theog (respondent No.4 therein), who exercises power of Assistant Collector, First Grade, Theog, allegedly, without applying quasi-judicial mind on points of facts as well as on law, passed a unilateral order regarding mode of partition which is under challenge before the Sub Divisional Collector, Theog and is pending for 26.6.2014. Accused persons, with the ulterior motives, forged the zimini order dated 24.4.2014 to the extent that case was shown to be adjourned to 25.4.2014, whereas on that date, case was actually adjourned to 10.6.2014. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Advocate, is that complaint sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is totally frivolous and false. He further submitted that otherwise, there is no specific allegation of tempering of zimini order by the petitioners. He submitted that offence, if any, of tempering was allegedly committed by Mr. J. R. Bhardwaj, the then Tehsildar, who has now expired. He further submitted that otherwise also, bare perusal of order dated 25.3.2014, nowhere suggests tempering, rather it clearly suggests that on that date, matter was adjourned to 25.4.2014 on account of casual absence of Presiding Officer i.e. Tehsildar. He further submitted that bare perusal 4 of aforesaid order clearly reveals that on that day, matter stood finally decided and it was simply adjourned to 25.4.2014 for pronouncement of order, meaning thereby, no benefit, if any, could have been taken by the accused named in the complaint by tempering with zimini order because on 25.3.2014, arguments were concluded and order was reserved. Mr. Verma, further argued that no case much less under the aforesaid provisions of law is made out against the petitioners because as per complaint, tempering, if any, was done by the revenue authorities and no allegation, if any, of the connivance of the appellants is leveled in the complaint as well as statement of the complainant recorded at the time of issuance of process. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS). 6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others 1977 (2) SCC 699, 5 held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS) is entitled to quash the proceedings, 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. 7. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv 6 Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 7 9. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Departmetn of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC (relevant paras 16 and 17). Also see Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS). 11. Now in light of aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavour to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-a-vis factual matrix of the case. 8 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, vis-à-vis complaint sought to be quashed, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that no case much less under the afore provisions of law is made out against the petitioner. If the complaint sought to be quashed is read in its entirety, it nowhere discloses offence, if any, committed by the petitioners, who had actually purchased the land from accused No.1-Soda Devi, who has also expired. Allegation of tempering with zimini order, if any, is against the Tehsildar, who has also expired and his Reader i.e. accused No. 5. 13. There is no whisper in the complaint as well as statement made by the complainant at the time of issuance of process with regard to role, if any, played by the petitioners in tempering the zimini order. Moreover, this Court finds that on 25.3.2014, though Presiding Officer i.e. Tehsildar Theog had adjourned the matter for 16.4.2024, for arguments, on which date, he after having heard learned counsel for the parties, reserved the order and adjourned the case to 24.4.2014. Similarly, bare perusal of zimini orders dated 25.3.2014, 16.4.2014 and 24.4.2014, placed on record as (Annexure P-2), nowhere indicates tempering, if any. Since there is no specific allegation with regard to tempering, if any, by the petitioners, it is not 9 understood that on what basis case, under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC is registered against the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court is fully convinced and satisfied that complaint lodged against the petitioners at the behest of respondent No.1 is bound to fail as none of the ingredients of afore provisions of law, are made out. No fruitful purpose would be served in case complaint sought to be quashed is permitted to sustain qua the petitioners, who otherwise in the event of continuation of proceedings, would be unnecessarily put to ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to file. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed, as a result of which, complaint No. 3-2024 filed under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC along with consequential proceedings i.e. orders dated 25.6.2025, 15.7.2025 and 30.7.2025, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is quashed and set-aside. 15. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merit of the case qua other accused, rather same shall be decided in accordance with law in totality of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. 10 In the afore terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. May 13, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge