( 2025:HHC:30710 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.249 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Brig Ajay Hooda & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Balram Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed on record, order dated 08.09.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. By way of order dated 08.09.2025, the cancellation report, after deciding the objections raised by the complainant has been accepted. The relevant paragraphs-11 and 12 of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:30710 ) order dated 08.09.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, are reproduced as under:- “11. Complainant has also prayed for taking cognizance against respondents for commission of offence punishable under Section 26 of the POSH Act. In support thereto, complainant has relied upon the contents of COI proceedings. It is the case of complainant that irrelevant and humiliating questions against Vishakha Guidelines were asked to her and her name was displayed on the gates of Yol Cantt, in clear violation of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court despite the complainant being a victim. An assiduous perusal of record reveals that the name of complainant was written on a paper slip on the gate of Yol Cantt, in the background of security lapse happened there. Said display of name of complainant being a security aspect, has no relation with the mandate of non displaying of the name of victim in women related offences. The procedure of approaching internal complaints committee enshrined in the POSH Act squarely covers the grievance of the complainant, if any, regarding irrelevant and humiliating questions asked to her during COI. 12. In view of observations made hereinabove, cancellation report filed by SHO, P.S. Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in the present case is accepted. Let, police file along with copy of this order be sent to SHO, P.S. Dharamshala District Kangra, H.P. and papers of this Court after due completion be consigned to record room.” ( 2025:HHC:30710 ) In view of above, no further action is required to be taken in the present petition. The same is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Virender Singh) Judge September 09, 2025 (subhash)