2026:HHC:7377 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1046 of 2025 Reserved on: 05.03.2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 Kanshi Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Ahuja, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel. For Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted, and the objections preferred by the petitioner/informant before the learned Trial Court were dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:7377 that he had cultivated maize and paddy in Khasra Nos. 65, 66, 82 and 83. Devi Roop, Devi Chand, Anita, Hira Devi, Sartwaju and Kanahya removed the crop. They also threw the stones in Khasra No. 65, 66 and 83, which caused a huge loss to the informant. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police seized a copy of the jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 65 and 83, which mentioned that these khasra numbers are owned by Devi Roop and Devi Chand, and the informant had tried to forcibly encroach upon the land. A civil suit was pending between Devi Roop and the informant in which an order of status quo was passed on 07.07.2021. The informant had also filed an application for correction regarding Khasra No. 83, and the matter was pending. No case was made out for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 447, and 430 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A cancellation report was submitted. The learned Magistrate directed the police to carry out further investigation, however, the informant failed to produce any material to corroborate his version, and the police again filed a cancellation report. 3. The informant filed objections stating that the police had failed to conduct the enquiry regarding the possession. The 3 2026:HHC:7377 ownership was not relevant. The entries in the revenue record were contrary to the spot position. The police could not have adjudicated the disputed rights. Therefore, it was prayed that the police be directed to carry out the investigation regarding the possession on the spot. 4. Learned Trial Court held that a civil suit was pending between the parties. The accused were shown to be the owners in possession in the revenue record. No material showing the informant’s possession was produced before the police. The conclusion of the police that no case was made out could not be faulted. Accordingly, the cancellation report was accepted, and the objections preferred by the informant were rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the informant has filed the present petition asserting that the police had failed to conduct any enquiry regarding the possession. The revenue entries were contrary to the spot position. A person cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. This Court has passed an order of the status quo. The accused could not interfere with the informant’s possession during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed 4 2026:HHC:7377 that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 6. I have heard Mr Bhupender Singh Ahuja, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 7. Mr Bhupender Singh Ahuja, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner/informant, submitted that the police failed to conduct a proper enquiry to determine the possession and recommended the cancellation of the FIR simply because the ownership of the accused was recorded in the revenue record. The revenue record was contrary to the spot position. The investigation was not conducted properly. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the police had fairly investigated the matter but could not find any material to show the informant’s possession. The cancellation report was rightly submitted before the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2026:HHC:7377 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It is undisputed that the petitioner is not shown to be the owner in possession of the suit land. A civil suit was pending between the parties. Learned Additional District Judge Solan, restrained the informant Kanshi Ram from interfering with the possession of Devi Roop over Khasra No. 83. A specific finding was recorded that the informant was not in possession. This Court had passed an order of status quo, but the finding that the informant was not in possession has not been disturbed. 11. Prakash Chand was examined by the police. He showed his ignorance regarding possession and theft. The informant, Kanshi Ram, claimed that he had cultivated the land, but no person supported his version. The revenue entries carry with them a presumption of correctness and could not have been ignored by the learned Trial Court. 12. Since the informant had failed to establish his possession, therefore, the police had rightly submitted the cancellation report, and the learned Trial Court had rightly accepted it. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6 2026:HHC:7377 13. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is an extraordinary jurisdiction and cannot be exercised in routine. No case is made out for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in the present case. 14. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th March, 2026 (Nikita)