IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.9 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sh. Parul Sharma and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, 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. SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S. Boileauganj, present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No.145 of 2025, dated 27.08.2025, under Sections 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in terms of order dated 06.01.2026, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of Deputy Superintendent of Police (L.R.), Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that during investigation, no case is made out 2 against the petitioners under the aforesaid provision of law and as such, Police has already presented cancellation report before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to aforesaid status report, states that since prosecution has itself decided to file cancellation report in the competent Court of law, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. 4. Having carefully perused status report, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel representing the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if required and desired. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications, if any. March 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge