IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.251 of 2026 Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Rahul Khosla ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, a very innocuous prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to direct the investigating agency to conduct proper and fair investigation in the matter and file Challan within the stipulated time. 2. Having taken note of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court, vide order dated 01.04.2026, specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions that as to why, till date, Challan in FIR No.340 dated 16.10.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, has not been presented in the competent Court of law. 2 3. Pursuant to afore directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of Station House Officer, PS Sadar Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof clearly reveals that Police has already conducted investigation and no case is made out against the accused named in the complaint. Though there is nothing specific written in the status report with regard to filing of cancellation report in the competent Court of law, but having read status report in its entirety, this Court is convinced that Police, pursuant to complaint filed by the petitioner, has already conducted investigation and they are in the process of filing appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law. 4. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, reserving liberty to petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, qua the cancellation report, if any, against the accused named in the FIR in the complaint lodged at the behest of petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. April 23, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge