2026:HHC:28718 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 495 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 _____________________________________________________________ Apurva Chauhan & others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 81 of 2021, dated 22.04.2021, under Sections 295, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2026:HHC:28718 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of complainant, namely Swami Anantatmananda, Secretary, Ram Krishan Mission, near AG Office, Shimla, alleging therein that on 20.04.2021, at about 9.50 AM, while he was performing Pooja on the occasion of Navratra in the Temple of the Ashram, three ladies, namely Apurva Gautam, Shivani, Ranjana and one boy, namely Naman Gautam, unauthorizedly entered the Ashram premises alongwith their four pet dogs. Complainant also alleged that one lady, namely Jyotika Sharma, was also accompanying the aforesaid persons. Since afore persons had entered the Ashram premises for first time, the occupants of the Ashram, including the complainant, became suspicious and started making a video. Allegedly, accused, named in the FIR, got annoyed and snatched the mobile phone from the hands of one worker of the Ashram, namely Himmat and allegedly extended threats and hurled abuses. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be instituted against 2026:HHC:28718 3 the petitioners-accused, named in the FIR. Though, after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioners- accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR on the ground that FIR, sought to be quashed, already stands quashed against main accused, namely Jyotika Sharma. 3. It is also averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that cross FIR No.08 of 2021, dated 22.04.2021 was lodged at Women Police Station, Shimla under Sections 354(a), 354(c) and 509 of IPC against Swami Anantatmananda. However, aforesaid FIR was subsequently quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.416 of 2021 on the basis of compromise arrived interse Ms. Jyotika Sharma and Swami Anantatmananda. 4. Before quashing FIR No.08 of 2021, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court recorded the statement of Swami Anantatmananda. While taking note of the statement made by Ms. Jyotika Sharma, at whose instance aforesaid FIR had been lodged, that she does not wish to prosecute the case further, Court also recorded the statement of Swami 2026:HHC:28718 4 Anantatmananda that FIR No. 81 of 2021, registered against the private respondents, in which she was the victim, may also be quashed and set-aside. However, in afore proceedings, only Ms. Jyotika Sharma was a party, whereas the other accused were not arrayed as a party, as result of which, FIR No.81 of 2021 was not quashed against them. 5. Precisely, the case of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Suhani Gautam, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that since FIR No.08 of 2021 already stands quashed against the main accused, namely Ms. Jyotika Sharma, coupled with the fact that Swami Anantatmananda has already given statement on 06.10.2023 in Cr.MMO No.416 of 2021 that FIR No.81 of 2021 lodged at his behest can also be quashed, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in the instant case, also deserves to be allowed. 6. Respondent-State has filed reply, wherein facts noticed hereinabove have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. It has been categorically stated in the reply by the respondent-State that during the pendency of the trial arising out of FIR No.08 of 2021, Swami 2026:HHC:28718 5 Anantatmananda filed Cr.MMO No.416 of 2021 before this Court for quashing of FIR No.08 of 2021, dated 22.04.2021, registered at Women Police Station, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 354(a), 354(c) and 508 of IPC. Both Ms. Jyotika Sharma and Swami Anantatmananda came present before this Court in afore proceedings and decided to get the FIR quashed and set aside on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived interse parties. It has been further stated that there were several Civil and Criminal cases pending between the parties and as such, parties agreed to get the FIR quashed in order to put a quietus to their interse disputes. 7. Swami Anantatmananda categorically stated before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court that he had settled the matter voluntarily and desired to put a quietus to all disputes pending between him and the private respondent. 8. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that since petitioners-accused were not party to the proceedings in Cr.MMO No.416 of 2021, FIR No.81 of 2021 could not be quashed qua them. However, in view of the facts and circumstances 2026:HHC:28718 6 noticed hereinabove, particularly the compromise arrived at between the principal parties and the statement made by the complainant that he has no objection if FIR No.81 of 2021 is also quashed, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR deserves to be allowed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 10. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid submissions and counter submissions made on behalf of learned counsel representing the parties, this Court deems it necessary to discuss /elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings, while exercising power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 11. 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: 2026:HHC:28718 7 “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 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. 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. 2026:HHC:28718 8 As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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.” 10. 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-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).” 12. From the aforesaid exposition of law, it is clear that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.( Now section 528 of BNSS) can be exercised in the following conditions:(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 2026:HHC:28718 9 contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably. 13. 13. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à-vis factual matrix of the case. 14. Close scrutiny of the FIR, sought to be quashed, clearly reveals that the allegations with regard to unauthorized entry in the Ashram premises were primarily against Ms. Jyotika Sharma, who allegedly alongwith the petitioners-accused, who otherwise have been stated to be related to her, entered the Ashram premises with four pet dogs and attempted to vitiate the atmosphere of the temple in the Ashram premises. Since the temple management, including Swami Anantatmananda, has already settled the dispute with main accused, namely Ms. Jyotika Sharma and pursuant to amicable settlement arrived interse parties, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.416 of 2021 has already quashed the FIR No.08 of 2021 lodged against Swami Anantatmananda as well as FIR No.81 of 2021 lodged 2026:HHC:28718 10 against Ms. Jyotika Sharma, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners- accused also deserves to be allowed. 15. Leaving everything aside, Swami Anantatmananda, in his statement given to this Court on 06.10.2023, categorically stated that he had decided to settle the matter with a view to put a quietus to the dispute between him and the private respondents, which shall also include the petitioners-accused in the case at hand. 16. Having scanned the entire material adduced on record, vis- à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court, while exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS, may proceed to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, because continuance thereof would be sheer abuse of process of law, since, for the reasons stated herein above, case of prosecution is bound to fail against the petitioners in all probabilities. Otherwise also, in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is not accepted, they would be subjected to unnecessary ordeal of facing protracted trial, which otherwise is bound to fail. 2026:HHC:28718 11 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein- above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, present petition is allowed and FIR No. 81 of 2021, dated 22.04.2021, under Sections 295, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, are quashed and set-aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them in the aforesaid FIR. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. July 14, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge