2026:HHC:21888 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.03 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Sangeeta Devi & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Careful perusal of the reply filed by the respondents suggests that the Investigating Agency, after having conducted the investigation, has prepared the cancellation report for being filed in the competent Court of law. Since the Investigating Agency itself has proposed to file the cancellation report, there appears to be no justification for this Court to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR. 2. At this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that no specific time limit has been given in the reply with regard to filing of the cancellation report and as such, this 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:21888 Court, while disposing of the present petition, may direct the respondent-State to file the cancellation report within a stipulated time. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that the cancellation report, if not already filed, shall be filed expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to file cancellation report, if not already filed, within a period of three weeks and thereafter sincere efforts shall be made by learned trial Court to dispose of the objections, if any, raised by the complainant qua cancellation report, so that petitioners, against whom nothing incriminating has been found, are not made to suffer for an indefinite period. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 04, 2026 (shankar)