Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 07.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 6 June, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:18144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.1136 of 2022
Reserved on : 07.03.2025
Decided on : 06.06.2025
Rajeev Vashisht …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer
Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram
Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioner-Rajeev Vashisht has filed the present
petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC‘), for quashing of FIR
No.19/2022, dated 26.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:18144
the ‘FIR, in question’), registered with Women Police
Station Una, H.P., under Sections 354(A) of the Indian
Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘) and
Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO
Act‘), as well as, all the consequential proceedings, pending
in Sessions Trial No.90/2022, before the Court of learned
Special Judge, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the
‘trial Court’).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
present lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner,
as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present
petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record,
may be summed up, as under:-
3.1. The police of Women Police Station, Una, has
submitted the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC,
before the learned trial Court, on the ground that on
26.07.2022, Lady Inspector Indu Devi, along with Lady
Constable Poonam, had proceeded towards place ‘Z’ (name
withheld), to verify the fact, as reported and recorded in
PC-435 dated 18.07.2022, where, the complainant (name
3 2025:HHC:18144withheld) got recorded his statement, under Section 154 of
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
‘CrPC‘), to the effect that he is resident of the address, as
mentioned in the complaint, and retired as Ayurvedic
Doctor. He is having two children, one son and one
daughter. His daughter was married, whereas, his son is
still unmarried.
3.2. According to the complainant, his daughter
firstly solemnized marriage in the month of October, 2012,
with Dinesh Kumar, R/o ‘Y’ (name withheld). However,
their marriage was dissolved in the year 2016. Out of the
said wedlock, daughter of the complainant blessed with a
daughter (name withheld) (hereinafter referred to as the
‘child victim’), to whom, she had given birth in the year
2014. After divorce, the daughter of the complainant, along
with child victim, had started residing with the
complainant.
3.3. As per the further contents of the complaint,
made by the complainant, on 19.10.2020, daughter of the
complainant solemnized second marriage with Rajeev
Vashisht (accused-petitioner). After the marriage, child
victim was taken by her mother to her in-laws at Bhopal.
4 2025:HHC:18144
The accused was having a four-year-old son from his first
marriage. Both the children were residing with the
complainant’s daughter and accused. The child victim is
six-year-old.
3.4. After few days of the marriage, the daughter of
the complainant telephonically informed that her husband
is beating her and threatening to divorce her. According to
the complainant, his daughter has also disclosed that the
accused is giving step-motherly treatment and
misbehaving with the child victim, upon which, daughter of
the complainant also apprised her in-laws.
3.5. On 08.12.2021, at the instance of the daughter
of the complainant, complainant brought the child victim
to his house. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant
was also brought by him to his native place. After residing
with the complainant for about one-and-a-half month, the
daughter of the complainant had gone to her maternal
home, along with the accused, whereas, the child victim
refused to accompany them, on the ground that she will
reside with her maternal grandparents. When, the child
victim, as well as, her mother were residing in the house of
the complainant, then, accused came to meet his wife.
5 2025:HHC:18144
House of the accused is stated to be in Rakkad Colony and
on one or two occasions, accused took child victim, along
with his wife, to his house.
3.6. Thereafter, the child victim had started
disclosing the incident of discrimination and wrong act, to
the complainant, as well as, to his wife. The child victim,
according to the complainant, has disclosed that the
accused, to whom, she had allegedly referred to as ‘chote
papa’ took her to room and touched her private parts.
Complainant has further got mentioned in the complaint
that the child victim has also disclosed that when, she was
with the complainant at a place ‘A’ (name withheld), then,
accused had also touched her private parts. After coming
to know this fact, the complainant disclosed this fact to his
brother and brother-in-law, who have advised him not to
send the child victim to Bhopal.
3.7. Subsequently, daughter of the complainant was
called, who came, along with her brother-in-law and the
matter was discussed in the presence of the relatives and it
was decided that the child victim would stay with her
maternal grandparents. However, after the settlement, the
daughter of the complainant came along with her brother-
6 2025:HHC:18144
in-law (jeth) and tried to take the child victim forcibly. In
order to save the child victim, complainant has moved the
complaint.
3.8. On the basis of above facts, police registered the
FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into
motion.
3.9. The statement of the child victim was recorded,
under Section 161 of CrPC.
3.10. On 27.07.2022, child victim was produced,
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Court No.II, District Una, H.P., where, her statement,
under Section 164 of CrPC, was recorded.
3.11. After completion of the investigation, the police
filed the charge-sheet, under Section 354(A) of IPC and
Section 10 of POCSO Act, in the learned trial Court,
against the accused.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, filed under
Section 173(2) of CrPC, as well as, the documents, annexed
with it, the learned trial Court has framed the charges
against the accused, under Section 354(A) of IPC and
Section 10 of POCSO Act, vide order dated 11.05.2023.
7 2025:HHC:18144
When, the charges were put to accused, he has pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Now, by way of the present petition, petitioner-
accused has sought the relief that FIR in question, as well
as, the consequential proceedings, may be quashed.
6. The relief of quashing has been sought by the
petitioner-accused on the ground that his first wife had
expired after giving birth to his son and thereafter, the
petitioner was looking for a suitable match, who would
take care of his son. The daughter of the complainant,
who, as per the stand, taken by the petitioner-accused,
was married and having a female child, got divorced from
her previous husband.
7. The daughter of the complainant is stated to be
highly qualified and she, along with her mother, who is
also stated to be a retired Lecturer, started an institute at
place ‘B’ (name withheld). Thereafter, according to the
petitioner-accused, he was married with the daughter of
respondent No.2 (complainant) on 19.10.2020 and the
marriage was registered on 26.10.2020.
8. Thereafter, according to the petitioner-accused,
he had adopted the child victim, vide Registered Adoption
8 2025:HHC:18144
Deed dated 26.10.2020, when, she was about six years of
age.
9. It has been averred in the petition that after the
marriage, his wife, i.e., daughter of respondent No.2, along
with the child victim, went to Bhopal, in the company of
petitioner-accused, where, they had started living with him
happily. The child victim, as well as, the son of the
petitioner-accused, who are stated to be of the same age
group, became very familiar and affectionate to each other.
10. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that his
wife was looking after the institute, but, when, she had
joined the matrimonial home at Bhopal with him, then,
income from the said institute had reduced drastically.
11. According to the petitioner-accused, respondent
No.2, who is the complainant, is always after the money
and in order to meet his greed, he can go to any extent.
Elaborating these facts, petitioner-accused has pleaded
that the complainant, in order to achieve his object of
making money, invented a device to take away the child
victim from the custody of her mother on the pretext that
schools are closed and let, the child victim to live with him
for few days.
9 2025:HHC:18144
12. Petitioner-accused has further pleaded that
from October, 2020 to December, 2021, there was no
complaint against him. But, in the month of February, wife
of the petitioner-accused/daughter of respondent No.2
requested respondent No.2 to send back the child victim to
Bhopal, as, schools are reopened, but, respondent No.2
deliberately did not send her back, in order to meet his
greed for money, by compelling the wife of the petitioner-
accused to run the institute. However, according to the
petitioner-accused, respondent No.2 could not succeed in
his mission.
13. According to the petitioner-accused, in the
month of May, wife of the petitioner had gone to the house
of respondent No.2 to take the child victim back to Bhopal,
but, she was not allowed to enter in the house and was
scolded and rebuked by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the
wife of the petitioner-accused made efforts to settle the
dispute with the intervention of the elders of the family,
but, respondent No.2 had not permitted her to enter in his
house.
14. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused
that respondent No.2 proclaimed that he could get them
10 2025:HHC:18144
imprisoned and the petitioner-accused, as well as, his wife,
would be framed in a false case, under the POCSO Act.
15. It has further been averred in the petition that
subsequently, the wife of the petitioner-accused had filed a
Habeas Corpus Petition, before this Court, which was
registered as Criminal Writ Petition No.2/2022 and
thereafter, respondent No.2 had made a false complaint in
retaliation to the said Habeas Corpus Petition. The said
complaint was filed, before the police, on 24.05.2022.
During the enquiry of the said complaint, the wife of the
petitioner-accused and respondent No.2 had levelled
allegations and counter-allegations against each other. The
said Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of, by this
Court, vide order dated 30.05.2022, by observing that the
wife of the petitioner-accused, being mother and natural
guardian, was entitled and had a preferential and first
right for the custody of minor child. However, in the said
order, it was observed that the custody of the minor child
shall remain with the maternal grandparents, subject to
any other order that may be passed by a competent Court
of jurisdiction.
11 2025:HHC:18144
16. The FIR against the petitioner-accused has
been assailed on the ground that bare reading of the same
does not make out a case against him. Highlighting the
statement of the child victim, it has been pleaded that no
case of sexual harassment is made out against the
petitioner-accused.
17. To buttress his contention, the petitioner-
accused has pleaded that the police has recorded DDR
No.23 dated 31.05.2022 with Women Police Station, Una,
mentioning therein, the on the statement of the child
victim, no offence is made out. Along with the petition,
statement of the child victim, recorded on 31.05.2022, has
also been annexed.
18. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused
that prior to recording the rapat on 31.05.2022,
Counsellor, District Child Protection Unit, Una (DCPU), has
prepared a report, in which, respondent No.2, his wife and
two others had signed and the same was counter-signed by
the DCPO, Una.
18.1. In the said report, factual position has been
recorded that the child victim does not want to go with her
mother and expressed her intention to reside with her
12 2025:HHC:18144
maternal grandparents. In this report, it has been
mentioned that the child victim disclosed that her father
(accused) has touched her private parts and this fact was
disclosed by the child victim to her mother, upon which,
her mother had tried to make her understand by saying
that the same will not be repeated again.
19. The petitioner-accused has also relied upon the
counselling report, dated 16.06.2022, asserting the fact
that no case under the POCSO Act was found to have been
made out.
19.1. All these facts have been highlighted to show
that the entire story against the petitioner-accused has
been cooked up by respondent No.2 in order to achieve his
motive to disturb the married life of his daughter (wife of
the petitioner-accused). In this regard, the petitioner-
accused has put forward the defence that the real cause for
lodging the complaint, against him, was the fact that a
residential plot was purchased in the name of the wife of
the petitioner-accused by respondent No.2 and he had
demanded either to pay the price of the plot or to re-
transfer the same to him.
13 2025:HHC:18144
20. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused
that on 19.02.2022, a compromise was entered into
between respondent No.2, his wife on the one side and on
the other side, wife of the petitioner-accused, in which,
respondent No.2 has admitted about the factum regarding
the marriage of his daughter with petitioner-accused in
October, 2020 and after some time, certain differences
arose, between the two, which resulted into civil and
criminal litigations. Copy of the said compromise has been
annexed with the petition as Annexure P-10.
21. The said compromise is stated to have been
executed, between the parties, on 19.09.2022. According to
the petitioner-accused, on that day, two compromises had
taken place, between the parties.
22. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused
that in view of the compromise, Annexure P-11, it has been
agreed to get FIR No.19/2022 dated 26.07.2022, quashed.
23. On the basis of the said compromise, CrMMO
No.934/2022 was filed, before this Court. In the said
petition, respondent No.2, along with the child victim, had
appeared and thereafter, this Court interacted with
respondent No.2 and advised him to let live the petitioner-
14 2025:HHC:18144
accused and his wife, with the child, peacefully and the
matter was adjourned for 02.11.2022. On that day, due to
the non-appearance, on behalf of respondent No.2, the said
petition was dismissed, being infructuous.
23.1. All these facts have facts have been highlighted
to show that the intention of respondent No.2 was mala
fide and for the reasons, as stated in the petition, and on
the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to
quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings,
resultant thereto.
24. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2
have filed their separate replies.
25. In the reply, filed by respondent No.1, the
prayer, as made by the petitioner-accused, has been
opposed, on the ground that on the complaint of
respondent No.2, FIR No.19/2022 dated 26.07.2022 was
registered against the petitioner-accused. Thereafter, the
statement of the child victim was got recorded by
producing her before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Una,
under Section 164 of CrPC and after completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the
15 2025:HHC:18144
petitioner-accused, under Section 354(A) of IPC and
Section 10 of POCSO Act, in the competent Court of law.
25.1. Contents of para No.12, with regard to the
proceedings, before the Counsellor, have not been
disputed, but, according to respondent No.1, the child
victim has levelled the specific allegations against the
petitioner-accused, in her statement, under Section 164 of
CrPC.
25.2. The prayer has also been objected to on the
ground that the defence of the petitioner-accused is not
liable to be considered, at this stage.
26. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the petition.
27. Respondent No.2 has also filed the reply, in this
case, by taking the preliminary objection that a futile
attempt has been made by the petitioner-accused to give a
shape of civil dispute to the present matter by mentioning
wrong facts in the petition, whereas, in the final report,
under Section 173(2) of CrPC, a sensitive matter has made
out.
27.1. On merits, it has been pleaded that respondent
No.2 made a complaint to the police on 24.05.2022, with
16 2025:HHC:18144
regard to the unfortunate incident, but, the petitioner-
accused, who happens to be a very influential person, as
well as, well-connected person had been managing to hush
up the matter. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had written
letters to various higher authorities and subsequently, FIR
in question was registered.
27.2. In this regard, respondent No.2 has relied upon
the copies of the representations, which have been
annexed with the reply, as Annexure R-1 (colly). The
history of litigation, between the parties, has not been
disputed and it has been prayed that the present petition
may be dismissed.
28. The petitioner-accused has filed the present
petition, under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of FIR
in question, as well as, the consequential proceedings,
which are stated to be pending before the learned trial
Court.
29. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has elaborately
been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the year
1992, in the case titled as State of Haryana Vs.
Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, reported as 1992
CrLJ, 527, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
17 2025:HHC:18144
formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the
judgment is reproduced, as under:-
“107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate with the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FLR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only. a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
18 2025:HHC:18144
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
30. This view has again been reiterated by a three
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra &
Others, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant
paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra),
after considering the decisions of this Court in the
cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra) and other decisions on the exercise of
inherent powers by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is
observed and held as under:
“5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code in a case of this nature is the
19 2025:HHC:18144exception and not the rule. The section does
not confer any new powers on the High
Court. It only saves the inherent power
which the Court possessed before the
enactment of the Code. It envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to
give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay
down any inflexible rule which would
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
No legislative enactment dealing with
procedure can provide for all cases that
may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have
inherent powers apart from express
provisions of law which are necessary for
proper discharge of functions and duties
imposed upon them by law. That is the
doctrine which finds expression in the
section which merely recognises and
preserves inherent powers of the High
Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal,
possess in the absence of any express
provision, as inherent in their constitution,
all such powers as are necessary to do the
right and to undo a wrong in course of
administration of justice on the principle
quando lex aliquid alique concedit,
conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non
potest (when the law gives a person
anything, it gives him that without which it
cannot exist). While exercising powers
under the section, the Court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section
though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself. It
is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority so as to
20 2025:HHC:18144
produce injustice, the court has power to
prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse
of the process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of
the powers court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation or continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of
these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even
if the allegations are accepted in toto.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which
is clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or
may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether
the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is
the function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass
any person needlessly. At the same time
the section is not an instrument handed
over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden
death…..
21 2025:HHC:18144
8. As noted above, the powers possessed
by the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code are very wide and the very plenitude
of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. Court must be careful to see that
its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. High Court being the
highest court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in
a case where the entire facts are incomplete
and hazy, more so when the evidence has
not been collected and produced before the
Court and the issues involved, whether
factual or legal, are of magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no
hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in
regard to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4
SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC
892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of
Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .]
It would not be proper for the High Court to
analyse the case of the complainant in the
light of all probabilities in order to
determine whether a conviction would be
sustainable and on such premises, arrive at
a conclusion that the proceedings are to be
quashed. It would be erroneous to assess
the material before it and conclude that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a
proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise
of the inherent powers to quash the
proceedings is called for only in a case
where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of
which cognisance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to
quash the same in exercise of the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is
not, however, necessary that there should
22 2025:HHC:18144
be meticulous analysis of the case before
the trial to find out whether the case would
end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If
it appears that on consideration of the
allegations in the light of the statement
made on oath of the complainant or
disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of
the offence or offences are disclosed and
there is no material to show that the
complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High
Court. When an information is lodged at the
police station and an offence is registered,
then the mala fides of the informant would
be of secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the investigation
and evidence led in court which decides the
fate of the accused person. The allegations
of mala fides against the informant are of
no consequence and cannot by themselves
be the basis for quashing the proceeding.”
31. It is no longer res integra that at the time of
deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court
cannot assume the powers of the appellate/revisional
Court, nor, this Court can act as trial Court. While holding
so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chilakamarthi
Venkateswarlu & Another versus State of Andhra
Pradesh & Another, reported as (2019) 10 SCALE 239.
Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced, as
under:-
“15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it
23 2025:HHC:18144were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima
facie satisfied about existence of sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. For
that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate
materials and documents on record, but it cannot
appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the
materials produced are sufficient or not for
convicting the accused.”
32. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar & Others versus
State of Bihar & Another, reported as (2002) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 241.
33. Record perused.
34. In this background, now, this Court will
proceed further to determine, as to whether the petitioner-
accused is able to make out a case for exercising the
powers, under Section 482 of CrPC, by this Court, or not.
35. The petitioner-accused has annexed the
following documents with the petition, which are required
to be discussed, in order to decide the stand of the
petitioner-accused:-
i. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the Criminal Writ
Petition, filed by the wife of the petitioner-
accused, against the State, SP, Una, as well
as, against respondent No.2.
24 2025:HHC:18144
ii. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the complaint,
moved by respondent No.2, to the police on
24.05.2022.
iii. Annexure P-3 is the complaint, made by the
wife of the petitioner-accused on 26.05.2022.
iv. Annexure P-4 is the statement of respondent
No.2.
v. Annexure P-5 is the statement of the child
victim, recorded on 31.05.2022.
vi. Annexure P-6 is the copy of the General Diary
Details, recorded by the police, on the basis of
the statement of the child victim (Annexure P-
5).
vii. Annexure P-7 is the report, made by the
Counsellor, DCPU, Una.
viii. Annexure P-8 is the counseling report.
ix. Annexure P-9 is the statement of Ms. Rekha
Sharma, Chairperson, DCPU and statement of
Ms. Manorma Lakhan Pal, Member of DCPU,
Una.
x. Annexures P-10 & P-11 are the compromises,
which allegedly have taken place, between
the parties on 19.09.2022.
36. As stated above, respondent No.2 has also filed
the reply and annexed the following documents therewith:-
i. Annexure R-1 is the complaint, made by
respondent No.2 to DIG against SI Suman
25 2025:HHC:18144Sharma for not registering the FIR, under
POCSO Act.
ii. Copy of the complaint to SP, Una, has also
been annexed. In this document, the
complaint was made against SHO, Women
Police Station, Una.
iii. Annexure R-5 is the copy of the status
report, filed before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Una, in case
FIR No.36/2022, dated 28.12.2022,
registered under Section 354 of IPC with
Women Police Station, Una, against
respondent No.2, by his daughter (wife of
the petitioner-accused).
37. The present is a classic case of complex human
relationships, where, the parties to the proceedings are not
the strangers, but, real daughter on the one side and
father on the other.
38. From the documents, annexed with the file, the
chequered history of the case is also demonstrated, as, the
wife of the petitioner-accused had lodged the case, under
Section 354 of IPC against her father (respondent No.2), on
28.12.2022, after the registration of the FIR in question,
which was registered on 26.07.2022.
26 2025:HHC:18144
39. The documents, heavily relied upon by the
petitioner-accused, i.e. Annexures P-1, P-2, P-5, P-6, P-7,
P-8 and P-9, are, although, not the part of the charge sheet
filed by the police, under Section 173 (2) of CrPC, against
the petitioner-accused, before the learned trial Court, but,
these documents have been annexed by the complainant-
respondent No. 2, with the complaint filed against the
petitioner-accused, his wife and SI Sunita Sharma, who, at
the relevant time, was posted at Women Police Station,
Una.
40. By way of the said complaint, allegations have
been levelled against the police, as well as, against the
petitioner-accused and his wife. In such situation, when,
the person, who had put the criminal machinery into
motion, by lodging the FIR i.e. respondent No.2, has raised
the question, with regard to the authencity of those
documents by levelling the allegations against SI Suman
Sharma and Ms. Rekha Sharma, Chairperson, DCPU, who
had allegedly counter-signed the statement of child victim,
on 31.05.2022, then, the documents, which have been
relied upon by the petitioner-accused, in the present
27 2025:HHC:18144
proceedings, cannot be said to be the admitted documents
or the documents, veracity of which is not under challenge.
41. In the given circumstances, when the
veracity/authencity of the documents has been challenged
by the complainant-respondent No. 2, then, conducting
inquiry here, that too, under Section 482 CrPC, would be
nothing, but would amount to mini-trial, which is
prohibited under the law. These documents, although,
may have relevance for the dispute, involved in the present
case, but, once they are under challenge, then, an
opportunity has to be given to the complainant, as well as,
accused to rebut/prove those documents.
42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in ‘Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh and Others‘,
reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399, has cautioned the High
Courts not to conduct mini trial, while exercising the
powers, under Section 482 of CrPC. Relevant paragraphs 5
to 8 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:-
“5. Having gone through the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings and
discharging the accused, we are of the opinion
that the High Court has exceeded in its
jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal
proceedings in exercise of the limited powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise of
28 2025:HHC:18144the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
6. From the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court, it appears that
the High Court has dealt with the proceedings
before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a
mini trial and/or the High Court was considering
the applications against the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion
of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at
the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the
criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is
not required to conduct the mini trial. The High
Court in the common impugned judgment and
order has observed that the charges against the
accused are not proved. This is not the stage
where the prosecution/investigating agency
is/are required to prove the charges. The
charges are required to be proved during the trial
on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency.
7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred
in going in detail in the allegations and the
material collected during the course of the
investigation against the accused, at this stage.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court
has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider “whether any sufficient material is
available to proceed further against the accused
for which the accused is required to be tried or
not”.
8. One another reason pointed by the High Court
is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings /
proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that the investigation was
handed over to the CBI pursuant to the
directions issued by the High Court. That
thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the
accused persons have been chargesheeted.
Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing
at this stage that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether
the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or
not, is not required to be considered at this
stage. The same is required to be considered at
29 2025:HHC:18144
the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this
stage, what is required to be considered is a
prima facie case and the material collected
during the course of the investigation, which
warranted the accused to be tried.”
43. Considering the case of the petitioner-accused,
in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
as referred to above, the child victim, in this case, was
produced, before the Court, where, her statement, under
Section 164 of CrPC, was recorded on 26.07.2022. In the
said statement, the child victim has made allegations
against the petitioner-accused, for which, the prosecution
is entitled to adduce the evidence in order to prove the
same, against him.
44. So far as the case laws, relied upon by the
petitioner i.e. ‘Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr.‘,
reported in 2017 (13) SCC 369, ‘Iqbal @Bala & Ors. Vs.
State of UP & Ors.’, reported in 2023 (8) SCC 734,
‘Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.’, Neutral
Citation No.2023 INSC 684, ‘Mohammad Wajid & Anr. Vs.
State of UP & Ors.‘, reported in AIR 2023 (SC) 3784,
‘Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi’, reported in
2013 (9) SCC 293, ‘Khakashan Kausar @Sonam & Ors. Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors.‘, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 and
30 2025:HHC:18144
‘Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), reported in 2019 (11) SC 706, are concerned, with
due respect to the laws, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the same are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as, there is nothing on
record to demonstrate, at this stage, that the criminal
proceedings, initiated against the petitioner-accused, are
mala fide and as such, falls within the definition of ‘abuse
of the process of law’. Hence, no benefit could be derived
from the above case laws, by the petitioner-accused.
45. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove,
there is no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer, so
made in the petition. Consequently, the same is
dismissed.
46. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as, these observations are confined only
to the disposal of the present petition.
47. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
31 2025:HHC:18144
48. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
June 06, 2025
(Gaurav Thakur)
[ad_1]
Source link