2026:HHC:23180 _____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 443 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.05.2026 Date of Decision 19 .06.2026 Bimla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Vaibhav Vats, Advocate. For the respondents/ State : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the cancellation report filed by the police was accepted. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for 2 2026:HHC:23180 registration of the F.I.R. It was asserted that Mukesh Kumar was the only son of the petitioner, who was married to the accused according to Hindu Rites and customs. The accused was not residing with the petitioner for many years. The accused and her family members were treating Mukesh Kumar with cruelty. They would humiliate Mukesh Kumar and give him beatings. The accused also used to taunt Mukesh Kumar. He was the father of two children, but the accused never allowed them to talk to Mukesh Kumar. The family members of the accused also extracted ₹2,00,000/- to ₹3,00,000/- from the petitioner’s husband for the marriage of Manoj Kumar and Priya. The petitioner’s husband died in April 2022, and the accused picked up the quarrel with Mukesh Kumar without any rhyme or reason. Subsequently, Mukesh Kumar was found dead. He had received grievous injury on the upper side of his head. The police did not make any inquiry into the matter; hence, a prayer was made to take action against the accused. 3. Learned Trial Court allowed the application and directed the police to register the F.I.R. The police registered the F.I.R and investigated the matter. 3 2026:HHC:23180 4. The police filed the cancellation report stating that no person had seen Mukesh Kumar being beaten. There was a dispute between the petitioner and her daughter-in- law, who was arrayed as an accused. No person suspected any foul play. The petitioner had also not produced any material before the police to justify her suspicion. Hence, it was prayed that the F.I.R be quashed. 5. The notice of the final report was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Court and filed the objections. The learned Trial Court held that the police could not find any material to show that the death of Mukesh Kumar was homicidal and no person had suspected any foul play; therefore, the cancellation report was accepted, and the F.I.R. was ordered to be quashed. 6. Being aggrieved by the acceptance of the cancellation report, the petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court. It has been asserted that post-mortem and forensic examination revealed injuries on the body of the deceased Mukesh Kumar. The forensic opinion stated that the possibility of sustaining the injuries due to a fall from 4 2026:HHC:23180 height could not be ruled out. The cancellation report did not examine whether the deceased was assaulted, pushed, chased, threatened, rendered unconscious or otherwise harmed before the fall. The site plan is incorrect, and the cancellation report was prepared under undue influence. The police had not associated independent witnesses and relied upon the statements of the related witnesses. The learned Magistrate had also accepted the cancellation report without considering the objections preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 7. I have heard Vaibhav Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. 8. Mr Vaibhav Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the circumstances on record showed that the death of Mukesh Kumar was not suicidal but homicidal. The police have not investigated the matter fairly. The site plan was prepared after the registration of the F.I.R. The statements of the witnesses were discrepant. The petitioner had suspected the involvement of Manjeet Singh, 5 2026:HHC:23180 but the police had not interrogated Manjeet Singh. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. 9. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the police had fairly investigated the matter. There was no material to show that Mukesh Kumar was murdered by any person. The petitioner has made vague allegations without any foundation. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have the records carefully. 11. The present petition and the objections preferred by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court are silent regarding the names of the persons who were required to be interrogated, but were not interrogated by the police. Thus, the submission that the police had not interrogated the persons who could have revealed the cause of death is not acceptable. 12. It was submitted that the deceased was found face down, and he could not have sustained injuries on the rest of 6 2026:HHC:23180 the body. This submission is not acceptable. The copy of the post-mortem report mentions that the deceased was brought with the alleged history of death due to a fall. As per the report of the SFSL, 180.75 ± 1.890 mg per cent ethyl alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. The cause of death was a shock due to multiple injuries caused by blunt force, which could be possible in the alleged circumstances. Therefore, the post-mortem report clearly shows that the cause of death could have been a fall in a state of intoxication. This is also corroborated by the report of the SFSL, in which 180.75 ± 1.890 mg per cent ethyl alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. The Professor & Head- cum State Medico Legal Advisor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda, H.P. stated in his opinion that the possibility of sustaining injuries due to a fall could not be ruled out. He categorically stated that there was a remote possibility of sustaining the injuries due to being hit with a weapon. Therefore, his opinion also rules out that the injuries were caused by hitting the deceased with a weapon. 7 2026:HHC:23180 13. The police had recorded the statements of witnesses, who did not suspect any foul play in the death of Mukesh Kumar. The petitioner has a dispute with the accused and is interested in implicating her. She had also not shown any concrete reason to suspect the involvement of the accused. She claimed in the petition that the accused and Manjit Singh had murdered the deceased, but she has not produced any material in support. Thus, the suspicion of the petitioner is not well-founded. 14. It was submitted that the site plan was not prepared immediately and was prepared after the F.I.R was registered. This submission overlooks the fact that initially, the police had proceeded on the premise that it was an accidental death and when the F.I.R. was registered, the investigation was conducted. Since no investigation was conducted before the registration of the FIR, there was no question of preparing the site plan. 15. Some discrepancies were also highlighted in the written submissions made before the Court. It is difficult to see how the discrepancies in the statements would prove 8 2026:HHC:23180 that the accused had committed the murder of Mukesh Kumar. 16. The police had thoroughly investigated the matter. It is not shown that any material evidence was ignored or the statement of any witness was not recorded; therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had rightly accepted the cancellation report, and the order passed by the learned Trial Court is not liable to be interfered with while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 17. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. 18. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th June, 2026. (ravinder)