IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.83 of 2026 Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Sunita Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No.120 of 2025, dated 27.07.2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, as well as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 consequent proceedings pending adjudication before Gram Panchayat Kothi, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 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 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.3 (in short “complainant”), who alleged that while he was getting window of his house repaired, accused came on the spot and started objecting to the work. He alleged that besides abusing him, accused also gave beatings to him as well as his family members with stick. He alleged that during the aforesaid incident, family of the accused and his brother-in-law Nikka Ram also started fighting with him. He further alleged that Nikka Ram was also holding a stick in his hand and gave a blow to his aunt Jaamti Devi, as a result of which she sustained injuries. He further alleged that accused extended threats to kill his entire family. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the accused. 3. Since during investigation, offences alleged to have been committed by the accused were found to be triable by the Gram Panchayat as per Schedule III of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, (in short “Act”). Police, after having completed investigation, presented challan before concerned Gram Panchayat. In the afore background, accused 3 approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash the FIR detailed hereinabove as well as order dated 08.11.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby Gram Panchayat concerned took cognizance of the matter (Annexure P-8). 4. While referring to Section 35 of the Act, Mr. Surya Chauhan, Legal Aid Counsel, attempted to argue that police had no jurisdiction, if any, to transfer the case to the Gram Panchayat, rather at first instance, it ought to have filed charge sheet before competent Court of law, which being satisfied that offences/case alleged to have been committed by the accused fall under Schedule III of the Act, could have further transferred the case to Gram Panchayat. Mr. Surya Chauhan, Legal Aid Counsel, further submitted that otherwise also, dispute, if any, inter se parties is civil in nature, but yet accused with a view to harass and torture the complainant has given it a criminal colour to wreak vengeance. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent, supported the action of the police inasmuch as it proceeded to file charge sheet before concerned Gram Panchayat. While referring to offences mentioned in Schedule III of the Act, Mr. Sharma submitted that offences allegedly committed by the accused under Sections 115(2), 352 & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita fall under Schedule III, as such, same, being 4 cognizable under Section 32, are triable by the Gram Panchayat exclusively. While referring to Section 34, Mr. Sharma further submitted that offences prescribed in Schedule III otherwise cannot be tried by other Court of law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court may agree with Legal Aid Counsel that there is a civil dispute inter se parties, but at the same time, it cannot lose sight of the fact that no person can be permitted to commit criminal act under the garb of civil dispute, rather any person, being aggrieved, if any, on account of civil injury, can approach appropriate Court of law for appropriate orders, but certainly cannot be permitted to take law in his/her own hands. 7. MLC adduced on record clearly reveals that in the alleged incident, complainant suffered injuries, as such, accused has been rightly booked under Sections 115(2), 352 & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Schedule III annexed with the Panchayati Raj Act clearly reveals that aforesaid provisions of law are exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the police, while presenting challan against the accused before the concerned Gram Panchayat, which is otherwise competent to try such offences. Section 35 of the Act speaks about the transfer of criminal proceedings to the Gram Panchayat in certain 5 cases. As per aforesaid provision of law, if, at any stage of the proceedings in a criminal case pending before a Magistrate, it appears that the case is triable by a Gram Panchayat, the trial Court is required to transfer the case forthwith to that Gram Panchayat, but aforesaid provision of law nowhere suggests that in a routine manner, police must first file every criminal case before Judicial Magistrate, rather in terms of Section 34 of the Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any case, suit or proceeding, which is cognizable under this Act by a Gram Panchayat established for the area to which the case, suit or proceeding relates, unless an order has been passed under Section 67. 8. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Any observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the main case, which shall be decided on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 13, 2026 (sunil)