IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.522 of 2026 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hemant Vats @ Hemant Kumar Wats …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vasu Jal, Advocate (through Video Conferencing), Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1- State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Through instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh, to decide the cancellation report submitted by the Police in FIR No.076, dated 10.05.2024, under Sections 354-D of Indian Penal Code and 66(E) of Information Technology Act, Police Station Sadar, Solan, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to the passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondent No.1, who is otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though cancellation report has been filed, but final decision qua acceptance of the same is to be taken by the Court, which is seized of the matter. Since respondent No.2, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted, shall be afforded fair opportunity to file objections, if any, to the cancellation report, coupled with the fact that only formal orders with regard to expeditious disposal of the case are proposed to be passed, there appears to be no justification to issue notice to afore respondent, as such, same is dispensed with. 3. It has been averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that cancellation report was filed on 06.10.2024 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan (Annexure P-9), but till date no decision has been taken upon the same, as a result thereof, petitioner, against whom the FIR sought to be cancelled and in whose favour the cancellation report has been filed, continues to suffer. 3 4. Having taken note of the fact that cancellation report stands filed in the competent Court of law on 06.10.2024, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the court below to decide the cancellation report in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from today. Needless to say, Court concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass appropriate orders. 5. In case Court below has already fixed date beyond the period of two months, it is directed to prepone the same and pass appropriate orders to ensure that needful is done expeditiously and within stipulated time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26, 2026 (sunil)