IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.538 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Purshottam ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Hitender Verma, Mr. Yug Singhal and Ms. Ananya Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “BNSS”) having been filed by the petitioner-complainant (in short “complainant”) for issuing directions to incharge Police Post Namhol/ SHO, Police Station Sadar to investigate the matter and register an FIR, came to be rejected, complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and allow the application filed under aforesaid provision of law with a direction to the police to lodge FIR. 2 2. In nutshell, the case of the complainant, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Yug Singhal, learned counsel representing the complainant, is that court below, while passing impugned order, failed to take note of the fact that complaint of the complainant was actually received by the office of Superintendent of Police through CM helpline, meaning thereby, afore authority was well aware of the incident, but yet failed to take any action. Complainant filed an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, stating therein that on 17.04.2025, marriage of son of respondent No.3 was solemnized at his residential place and the same was also attended by the complainant. At about 07:30 p.m., respondent No.3 requested the complainant to transfer money to him through Gpay but the complainant asked him to pay the amount in cash before transferring the afore amount online, whereafer allegedly respondent No.3 started hurling abuses at the complainant and he also quarreled with him and gave him beating along with other accused, as a result thereof he suffered severe as well as grievous injuries. One Smt. Meera Devi, wife of Sh. Anant Ram, though made an attempt to rescue the complainant from the accused, but her mangalsutra was broken in the process and sum of Rs.20,000/- along with mobile phone of the complainant was allegedly snatched by the accused, who have not returned the same till date. Complainant was also rescued with the help of one Sh. Krishanu Ram. Accused allegedly threatened the father of the complainant that they would kill the complainant, as such, complainant reported the matter with Police Post Namhol. Since police did not take any action, complainant lodged online complaint on 1100 CM Helpline number, 3 however, no action was taken by the police, as such, complainant instituted complaint under Section 175(3) of BNSS in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, for issuing direction to incharge Police Post Namhol/SHO, PS Sadar to investigate the matter and register an FIR as detailed hereinabove. However, such prayer of him came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by court concerned on the ground that prior to his having made complaint under Section 175(3) of BNSS, he failed to approach Superintendent of Police under Section 175(3) of BNSS. In afore background, complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set the aforesaid impugned order and allow the application filed by the complainant under Section 175(3) of BNSS. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently argued that immediately after receipt of complaint from the complainant, SHO Police Station concerned got the complainant examined from Medical Officer, but since injuries found on the person of the complainant as well as other victims were simple, coupled with the fact that the offence was non-cognizable, no further action was taken, rather Kalandra was prepared and presented in the competent Court of law. 4. In nutshell, grouse of the complainant is that once factum with regard to alleged incident of beatings had come to the knowledge of the 4 Superintendent of Police through CM helpline number, there was otherwise no occasion for the court below to reject the complaint on the pretext that prior to his having filed complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, complainant had failed to approach Superintendent of Police in terms of Section 175(3) of BNSS. However, having carefully perused provisions contained under Section 175(3) BNSS, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, that before instituting complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, complainant is under obligation to lodge complaint with the concerned Police Station and in case no action is taken upon his complaint, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police by way of a complaint. It is only in that situation, where Superintendent of Police fails to act, complainant can straightway file application under Section 175(3) of BNSS in the competent Court of law, praying therein for issuance of direction to SHO Police Station concerned to lodge FIR. Since in the instant case, complaint lodged at the behest of complainant was not found to be maintainable by the SHO of Police Station concerned, there was no occasion, if any, for the complainant to lodge similar complaint to Superintendent of Police. Had SHO of Police Station concerned failed to take any positive action on the complaint of the complainant, he was well within his rights to lodge a protest before Superintendent of Police of the area concerned. Admittedly, in the case at hand, complainant, before initiating proceedings under Section 175(3) of BNSS, failed to lodge report with Superintendent of Police as per requirements of Section 173(4) of BNSS, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below, while passing impugned order. 5 Needless to say, complaint under Section 175(3) of BNSS cannot be filed before exhausting remedy of lodging complaint before SHO of Police Station concerned and thereafter approaching Superintendent of Police. It is only after non-interference, if any, shown by the afore authorities, complainant can file/lodge complaint under Section 175(3) of BNSS. 5. Leaving everything aside, SHO of the Police Station, after having received complaint from complainant, got the matter investigated, but since injuries suffered by the accused were found to be minor/simple in nature, Kalandra was prepared and submitted before the competent Court of law. If it is so, there was no occasion, if any, for the Investigating Officer to lodge FIR. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 26, 2026 (sunil)