2026:HHC:24813 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 599 of 2026 Reserved on: 15.06.2026 Date of Decision 24.06.2026 Gopal Sharma & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr Virender Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2/State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0038, dated 22.02.2026, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) and Sections 126(2), and 351(2) read with Section 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:24813 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that he and Rajesh Kumar were going to their home on 15.02.2026 at about 12:00 p.m. The petitioners, Gopal Sharma and Sachin Katwal, restrained them. The informant tried to explain that they were using a common passage, but the petitioners abused Naresh Kumar in the name of his caste. The informant told the petitioners to take action as per the law and not to hurl the abuses. The informant started video recording the incident, but the petitioners went away. Hans Raj also reached the spot. The petitioners threatened to kill the informant in future. The matter was reported to the police, and an FIR was registered against the petitioners. 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R, the petitioners have filed the present petition, asserting that the informant’s wife had committed suicide on 12.10.2023. Petitioner No. 1 was the Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Galma. He made a statement to the police and appeared as a witness in the 3 2026:HHC:24813 case. The informant started defaming the petitioner thereafter. Respondent No.4/Rajesh Kumar Sharma, a witness, contested the election for the post of Up Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Galma. He, respondent No.5 and the informant orchestrated the incident with the sole object of defaming the petitioners to prevent the petitioner No.1 from contesting the election. The family of respondent No. 5 (Hans Raj) had initiated multiple legal proceedings against the petitioners’ family. Brother of respondent No. 5, Lalit Kumar Sharma, had filed a criminal complaint on 28.09.2013. The father of respondent No.5 had instituted a civil suit in the year 2025 against the petitioner No.1 and his son. The informant had uploaded defamatory and malicious content against the petitioner No.1 on social media. The allegations in the FIR are false. There was a delay in the reporting of the matter to the police. The allegations are inherently improbable and actuated by mala fide. The investigation is continuing. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the investigation. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed 4 2026:HHC:24813 4. I have heard Mr Virender Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent nos. 1 and 2/State. 5. Mr Virender Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false and actuated by mala fide. The relationship between the parties is strained, and all the respondents have conspired together to make a false case against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. 6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 State, submitted that the investigation is continuing and the Court should not exercise the inherent jurisdiction to scuttle the investigation. The allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of cognisable offences. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5 2026:HHC:24813 8. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a 6 2026:HHC:24813 cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. 7 2026:HHC:24813 In clause (1), it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.” 9. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre- 8 2026:HHC:24813 empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) 10 The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The allegations in the F.I.R. show that the petitioners had restrained the informant and Rajesh Kumar from proceeding on the public path. They had abused the informant Naresh Kumar in the name of his caste. They threatened the informant and Rajesh Kumar to kill them. These allegations, prima facie, show the commission of cognizable offences. 12. It was submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false and that the petitioners had not abused or threatened the informant party. This submission will not help the petitioners. The Court exercising inherent jurisdiction does not go into the validity or otherwise of the allegations and has to treat them as correct. This position was laid down by the Hon’ble 9 2026:HHC:24813 Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, wherein it was observed: - “29. It is settled law that the power of quashing a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that, save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used routinely according to its whims or caprice.” 13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to determine the genuineness of the allegations. It was observed: - “13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). 10 2026:HHC:24813 14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060: “14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed: (SCC p. 63, para 16) “16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.” 14. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court cannot conduct a mini- 11 2026:HHC:24813 trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. It was observed at page 397: “17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7) 6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. … 7. … At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider ‘whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not’.” 15 It was submitted that there is a delay in reporting the matter to the police, and the F.I.R. should be quashed because of the delay. Again, this submission will not help the petitioners. It was laid down by the Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala (supra) that an FIR cannot be quashed because there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. It was observed: - 37. It is settled law that a delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal 12 2026:HHC:24813 investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation, and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, “The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents…” (Emphasis supplied) 16. It was submitted that the petitioners and informant party are inimical to each other, and a false F.I.R. was lodged to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. This submission will not help the petitioners. The enmity is a double-edged weapon: while it furnishes a motive for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of the crime. Therefore, the enmity will not help the petitioners. The police are investigating the matter and will verify the correctness of the allegations to determine whether the incident, as asserted in the F.I.R had taken place or not. However, F.I.R. cannot be quashed because of the enmity between the parties. 17. The investigation is continuing, and the F.I.R discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, it will be inappropriate to quash the F.I.R. at this stage. 13 2026:HHC:24813 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 20. 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 24th June, 2026 (ravinder)