2025:HHC:41150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1280 of 2024 Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Decided on: 02.12.2025. Raksha Devi …...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ……Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: M/s Arvind Sharma and Kiran Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents, Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and 4. Proceedings against respondent No. 3 stand abated. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order 15.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. vide which the cancellation report submitted in F.I.R. No. 43 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323 read 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:41150 with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act) at Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P. was accepted. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that she, Durgi Devi and Veena Devi were cutting the grass on 18.10.2022 at about 3:30 p.m. when Layak Ram, Roshan Lal and Sukh Ram attacked them. Sukh Ram abused the informant and other women in the name of their caste. He said that he would not permit them to cut the grass. The matter was reported to the police through a written application. The police registered the FIR, investigated the matter and found that the allegations made in the FIR were not proved. There were material contradictions in the statements of the informant and other witnesses. The place of the incident was owned by the Forest Department. The police seized the video recording of the incident, which showed that the informant party was pelting stones at the accused. No stick was found in Layak Ram’s hand. No evidence of cutting the grass was found on the spot. The 3 2025:HHC:41150 informant and other persons had stopped the villagers from grazing their cattle on the disputed land. The relationship between the informant and the accused was strained. Therefore, it was prayed that the final report be accepted and the F.I.R. be cancelled 3. The informant filed the objections to the police report, asserting that the police had not properly investigated the matter. The police had initially refused to register the informant’s F.I.R. The statements were not recorded as per their version. The Investigating Officer compelled the informant to compromise the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the cancellation report be rejected. 4. Learned Trial Court held that the facts alleged by the informant were not confirmed during the investigation. The video recording did not corroborate the informant’s version. No bias or unfairness could be gathered from the investigation. Hence, the cancellation report was accepted, and the F.I.R. was quashed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the informant has filed the present petition asserting that the statements of the witnesses and the material 4 2025:HHC:41150 collected on record disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence. The police did not properly investigate the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside 6. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1/State by filing a reply, making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the police investigated the matter as per the procedure established by law. The allegations made in the FIR were not substantiated after the investigation. The informant had filed the objections, which were duly considered by the learned Trial Court. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Notice of the petition was issued to the accused/respondents. Respondent no. 3 was reported to be dead, and respondents No. 2 to 4 did not appear despite service of notice. Hence, they could not be heard in the present petition. 8. I have heard M/s Arvind Sharma and Kiran Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State. 5 2025:HHC:41150 9. Mr Arvind Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that F.I.R. and material collected during the investigation disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. The Investigating Officer had not carried out a fair investigation. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent No.1/State, submitted that the police had fairly investigated the matter. No offence was found to have been committed. The police visited the spot and found that no grass had been cut, which falsified the informant’s version that she and other women were cutting the grass. The video recording seized by the police also did not corroborate the informant’s version. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. It was asserted in the F.I.R. that informant Raksha Devi, Durgi Devi and Veena Devi were cutting grass when Laik Ram, Roshan Lal and Sukh Ram reached the spot. The police 6 2025:HHC:41150 visited the spot but did not find any traces of the grass cutting. The photographs of the spot also do not show that any grass had been cut. Thus, the version of the informant that she was cutting grass with Durgi Devi and Veena Devi was not corroborated by the visit to the spot and the photographs. This falsified the informant’s version projected in the FIR. 13. The police also seized the video recording of the incident in which the informant party was shown on the higher side, whereas the accused were shown on the lower side of the hill. The informant was pelting stones at the accused. This falsified the contents of the FIR that the accused had prevented the informant party from cutting the grass. When the accused were downhill, and the informant party was pelting stones at them, they could not have prevented the informant party from cutting the grass. 14. It was submitted that the video recording does not show the genesis of the incident, and the police wrongly concluded that the video recording falsifies the informant’s version. This submission is not acceptable. The police file shows that no person had testified about pelting of stones upon 7 2025:HHC:41150 the accused. Thus, the video recording makes the informant’s version doubtful. 15. It was submitted that the investigation was not fair. Learned Trial Court had rightly pointed out that there was nothing to substantiate this plea. The police relied upon the objective circumstances to test the informant’s version. It is trite to say that the man may lie, but circumstances do not. Thus, the conclusion of the Investigating Officer that the offence alleged by the informant was not proved cannot be faulted. 16. No other point was urged. 17. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 18 The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 02nd December, 2025. (Ravinder)