2026:HHC:34823 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. WP No.4 of 2025 Decided on: 18.08.2026 Nishant Sharma ...... Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : None For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3. None for respondent No.4. Mr.Rajneesh Maniktala, Sr Advocate with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present petitioner, as such, challenges the order dated 18.11.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra at Dharamshala in Cr.M.A. No. 506 of 2024. 2. Apparently on 18.11.2024, the Magistrate had sent a copy of the said application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. titled as Keshav Dutt Shreedhar vs. Kamlesh Kumar 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2026:HHC:34823 Sharma & Others, for submitting the necessary status report by the police authorities . 3. It is not disputed that by virtue of the subsequent order dated 02.04.2025, the Magistrate, while taking the status report into consideration, came to the conclusion that a prima facie offence could not be made out to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., since it was a purely civil matter between the alleged Directors of the concerned company regarding alleged mismanagement and irregularities of the company’s resources and dismissed the petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- "10. In light of above, this court is of the view that the complainant is seeking indulgence of this Court through the present application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in a purely civil matter between the alleged directos of a concerned company in respect of the alleged mismanagement and irregularities of the company's resources. On the cost of repetition this court find it relevant to hold that even if it is assumed that the accused persons violated the provision of company law or any other law governing the field, then also the complainant cannot be justified to give it a colour of criminal wrong which may at best be civil in nature. Hence this court is of the view that the averments of application in hand, are not prima-facie revealing commission of a cognizable offence to invoke jurisdiction of this court under Section 156 (3) of Cr.Pc and thus in light of discussion herein-above, this application in hand is hereby found to be untenable, hence dismissed. It be disposed of accordingly and consigned to record room." -3- 2026:HHC:34823 4. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.345 of 2025, titled as Keshav Dutt Shreedhar vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & Others and, resultantly, the same was allowed on 11.11.2025 by the learned Single Judge of this Court with the observation that there was no occasion/provision to call for the status report from the police, as the same could only be called at the post-cognizance stage, as provided under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petition was allowed and the complainant was directed to appear before the Trial Court again. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- "16. When, the proceedings were pending, on the day of commencement of the BNSS, then, the complaint filed by the complainant is to be decided, as per the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.PC. Under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.PC, there was no occasion/provision, enabling the Magistrate to call for the status report from the Police, as, the same can only be called, in post cognizance stage, as provided under Section 202 Cr.PC." 5. It is not disputed that the present petitioner, Nishant Kumar Sharma, thereafter approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.42533 of 2026, titled as Nishant Kumar Sharma vs. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar & Ors., decided on 17.08.2026. 6. Yesterday, i.e. 17.08.2026, an order was passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) -4- 2026:HHC:34823 Diary No. 42533 of 2026 (supra), whereby the aforesaid petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, Nishant Kumar Sharma. Perusal of the order reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would withdraw the Special Leave Petition. His submission is placed on record. Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” 7. It is thus apparent that the matter has now been relegated to the Trial Court, as such, to undertake the necessary exercise, as observed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Resultantly, the objection, as such, of the present petitioner against the order impugned dated 08.11.2024, whereby the status report had been called for is thus rendered infructuous. 9. In view of the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice August 18, 2026 (Bipin Chander Negi) (meera/Sanjeev) Judge