2026:HHC:17322 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.361 of 2022 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Dheeraj Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Sharma and Ms. Preeti, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Through, instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.277 of 2018, dated 20.10.2018, under Sections 447, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC, registered at police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.363 of 2019, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Dheeraj Kumar and others, pending the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:17322 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 respondent No.2, Bhupinder Pal Mahajan, who alleged that after getting the land demarcated twice, he rasied one wall to protect his house situate in Khasra No.520, but same was demolished by the accused, named in the FIR(petitioners herein). He further alleged that afore accused, named in the FIR, besides demolishing the wall, also extended threats. To substantiate his aforesaid allegation, he also placed on record CD, having recording of the incident. After completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical ends, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, record of learned Court below has been made available. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the grounds of the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mohinder Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that no case much less under sections 447, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC is made out against the petitioners, because bare perusal of 3 2026:HHC:17322 demarcation report adduced on record by the Investigating Agency, itself suggests that wall was intact and no damage to the same was ever caused by the petitioners. While making this Court peruse demarcation report (Annexure P-12), Mr. Verma, vehemently submitted that after lodging of the FIR, police visited the spot of dispute and got the land demarcated. He submitted that it has specifically come in the demarcation report that wall was existing on the spot and as such, allegation levelled against the petitioners with regard to demolition of wall by private respondent is totally false. He submitted that since there is no concrete evidence to prove the allegation of the demolition, as levelled by the complainant, no fruitful purpose would be served, in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are permitted to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily put the petitioners to the ordeal of the protected trial, which is otherwise bounds to fail. 5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State and Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Preeti, Advocate, representing private respondent No.2, while refuting aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners made this Court to peruse the record of learned Court below. Above named counsel further argued that CD, having recording of the incident, adduced on record clearly reveals that petitioners had come on the spot with hammer and they 4 2026:HHC:17322 can be seen damaging wall. Learned Senior counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that demarcation was got conducted by the police after four months of alleged incident, by which time, petitioners had repaired the damage. He submitted that incident of damage caused to the wall had actually happened on 20.10.2018 and police moved an application for demarcation on 23.10.2018, whereafter revenue authorities got the land in dispute demarcated in the month of February, 2019 i.e. after four months of date of the alleged incident. 6. Photographs adduced on record clearly establishes factum with regard to damage, being caused to the wall by the petitioners with the help of hammer. In one of the photograph damage caused to the wall can be also seen. 7. Though, at this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioners attempted to argue that damage, if any, caused to the wall by petitioners otherwise could not have been repaired by the petitioners during the pendency of the case. However, this Court is not impressed with aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that private respondent had raised wall in front of his house for protection of his house and once half of the wall had damaged, as a result thereof, front door of the house of the private respondent was exposed, he had no option, but to repair the wall. Otherwise also, there is no bar, if any, for the private respondent 5 2026:HHC:17322 to get the wall repaired, especially when he had already placed on record CD of the alleged incident as well as photographs of the damaged wall. 8. Having scanned the material adduced on record, this Court is not perused to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that no prima-facie case exists against the accused under the relevant provisions of law, rather this Court finds that adequate evidence has been adduced on record by the prosecution to prove guilt, if any, of the petitioners under Sections 447, 506, 427 and 34 of IPC. Hence, this is not a case where this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can order quashment of the FIR, rather after taking note of involvement of disputed questions of fact and law, this Court finds that case at hand is a fit case to be tried by the competent court of law under the relevant provisions of law. 9. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Record of learned Court below be returned back forthwith. 10. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 03.06.2026, enabling it to proceed with the matter. 11. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 15, 2026 (shankar)