Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On:- 07.05.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 6 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.798 of 2022
Reserved on:- 07.05.2025
Date of Decision: 06.08.2025
.
Dhananjay Puri & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay,
Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioners have filed the present petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to
refer as the Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to quash FIR No.79 of 2022,
(hereinafter referred to as the FIR in question), dated
05.06.2022, registered under Sections 341, 354, 506 & 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), with
Police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., on the
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
2 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
ground that dispute involved in the said case is purely civil in
nature.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
.
permanent residents of the addresses, as mentioned in the
petition. They are residing in the half portion of the ground floor
of two storeyed building, constructed over land bearing Khata-
Khatauni No. 30/34, Khasra No.278, situated at Up Mohal Tara
Hall, Shimla (Urban), District Shimla, H.P., total measuring 70-
81 Sq. meters, known as Errin Villa. The said ground floor is
owned by the brother-in-law of the petitioners Sanjeev Vermani
and the half share of the building was purchased by Sanjeev
Vermani by way of registered sale deed dated 06.01.2004. Half
portion of the ground floor, comprised in Khasra No.278, is in
occupation and possession of petitioners and their family
members.
3. According to the petitioners, the approach to the
house of the petitioners is through adjacent Khasra No.280,
measuring 34-14 Sq. mtrs, which is ‘Gair Mumkin Sahen’,
jointly owned by Madan son of Bhagat Ram and Gaurav
Budhraja, respondent No.3, who is also owner of the built up
structure of the adjacent Khasra No.279. Khasra No.280 has
been merged with Khasra No.281, which is owned and
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
3 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
possessed by the petitioners and they are using the same as
entrance to their house. Area of Khasra No.280 in the nature of
‘Gair Mumkin Sahen’, which is an open space, and the only
.
approach to the house of the petitioners, situated over Khasra
No.278.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner
No.2 is suffering from uncurable skin disease, for which, he is
under treatment from the PGI, Chandigarh and the doctor has
advised him to take natural sunlight in order to avoid his
deteriorating skin condition. As per advice of the medical
professionals, petitioner No.2, is basks in the sun daily, in the
land, bearing Khasra No.280, which is ‘Gair Mumkin Sehan’.
5. According to the petitioners, in the month of May,
2013, a civil dispute had arisen between the petitioners and
respondent No.3, with regard to the peaceful usage and
easmentary rights of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.280
and 281. Thereafter, civil suit was filed against respondent
No.3 for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining him from
causing any obstruction/blocking the passage, by way of
erection of any structure including angle irons and angles nets.
6. The said suit is stated to be pending in the Court of
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.6, Shimla and is
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
4 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
fixed for evidence of respondent No.3. In the said suit,
application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been filed which was allowed, vide order dated
.
18.07.2013 by directing both the parties to maintain status quo.
7. Against the said status quo order, respondent No.3
had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge,
Shimla, however, his appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2014.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that
respondent No.3, in order to create/manufacture the evidence,
to be adduced, in Civil Suit No.53/1 of 2013, lodged a false,
frivolous and vexatious complaint, upon which the police had
registered FIR No.79 of 2022, dated 05.06.2022, registered
under Sections 341, 354, 506 & 34 of IPC with Police Station,
Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, against the petitioners.
9. As per the stand taken by the petitioners, FIR, so
registered, against them does not disclose any cognizable
offence. The contents of the FIR are stated to be vague and
cryptic and being lodged against the senior citizens(petitioners),
with a sole motive and intention to create evidence.
10. It is the specific case of the petitioners that
respondent No.3 is trying to give criminal colour to the dispute,
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
5 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
which is purely civil in nature, as injunction order is operating
against respondent No.3.
11. It is the further case of the petitioners that no
.
offence is made out in the said FIR, as the same does not
disclose a cognizable offence.
12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the FIR in question.
13. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2 have
filed the reply, disclosing therein, that on the complaint of
respondent No.2, commission of the cognizable offence was
found, as such, FIR in question was registered. Statements of
the witnesses got recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Statement of Smt. Mona Budhraja, wife of respondent No.3 has
been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., by producing her,
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Court No.6, Shimla. During investigation, it was found that
petitioner No.2, used to sit in sun in bare clothes (underwear)
and Dhananjay Puri, son of petitioner No.1, used to tie their dog
in the passage.
14. It is the further case of respondents No.1 and 2 that
notices under Section 41A have been served upon the
petitioners.
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
6 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
15. Respondent No.3 has also filed the reply by taking
the stand, as taken in the civil suit.
16. The petitioners are seeking the quashing of FIR in
.
question. The FIR in question has been annexed with the
petition as Annexure P-8. The contents of the same are
reproduced, as under:-
“To
The S.P. Shimla,Sub:- Complaint about unauthorised use of
property situated at Errin Villa, Circular Road,
Shimla-171001, Khasra No.280, Up Mahal, TaraHall.
Sir/Madam,
I have to submit that I am the owner
and in possession of the property that is situated atErrin Villa, Circular Road, Shimla. 171001, Khasra
No. 278,279, 280, 282 UP Mahal Tara Hall, abutting /adjoining to my said property there is a Courtyard
(Sehan recorded in the revenue records), the saidcourtyard is specifically entered against Khasra No.
280 Up Mahal Tara Hall and the said courtyard is inmy exclusive ownership & possession. That, my
neighbours namely Smt. Harbans Kaur Wife of
Praveen Kumar do reside alongwith her family in
another part of Errin Villa Building, which is
specifically entered against different Khasra No. I, do
not reside permanently at Shimla and in my absence
they started using my Courtyard for passage only
despite the fact that there was no passage from any
part of my Courtyard entered against Khasra No.::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
7 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
280. That in the year 2013, I started work of re-
erecting/repair of the old fencing, which had outlived
its life and my said neighbour Smt. Harbans Kaur
alongwith Sanjeev Vermani filed a complaint in the.
court claiming right of passage, only, through my
above mentioned Courtyard. I do visit Shimla
regularly though I do not reside permanently here.
Most of the time I do visit Shimla with my family and
staff. That on 30th May 2022, I came to Shimla
alongwith my wife and staff, I was shocked to see
that Smt. Harbans Kaur & her family had put upbedsheets, clothes & towels of her house and her
B&B unit which she is running, over my Courtyard
ralling causing a lot of Inconvenience and annoyanceand blocking our right of way. Smt. Harbans Kaur is
not the owner of any part of Errin Villa Building, it is
Sanjeev Vermani’s Property who is permanent
resident of Delhi. That on seeing the bedsheets,towels, clothes etc. on railing of my Courtyard I
started looking at my property with purpose toascertain its condition, and I found that Smt. Harbans
Kaur and her family had blocked my gate withpurpose to block my passage, namely cause
annoyance to me and my wife and attempt to committrespassing in my property. There is only one
entrance to Errin Villa Building Ground Floor which is
from the gate built on Khasra No. 281. My gate built
upon Khasra No. 280 is for my exclusive use to use
the Courtyard. Day before yesterday the Son of Smt.
Harbans Kaur started parking his motorcycle
registration number HP-03C-4540 in front of my
kitchen door. Whenever we come to Shimla the son
of Smt. Harbans Kaur does this mischievous activity::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
8 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )of parking his vehicle in front of our kitchen door.
Smt. Harbans Kaur and her family quiet often keep
their Dog outside the gate towards my Courtyard by
using chain to tie the dog with sole motive of trying to.
restrain our lawful way which is restricted and we will
not be able to use our property and there is always
threat & danger to my life & safety & life & safety ofmy family and staff members due to the tying of the
dog on the gate. There is one emergency entrance to
my building which is from my kitchen and the
approach is from Khasra No. 280 to my kitchen.
Since Smt. Harbans Kaur & her family members are
trying to obstruct/ restrain my passage from the main
entrance by blocking our way to the gate we are leftwith no option except to use the entrance from my
kitchen. That the Husband of Smt. Harbans Kaur
namely Shri Praveen Kumar on the instigation of
Smt. Harbans Kaur with motive to restrain us fromusing our property, do indulge in obscene activities.
When on May 30th 2022, I arrived at Shimlaalongwith my family & staff Shri Praveen Kumar used
to do obscene activities in my Courtyard andwhenever my wife used to visit the proximity of the
Courtyard and whenever he saw that we have cometo Shimla, he sits in Naked condition only in his
underwear and does oil massage with the sole
motive that on seeing him we will not go to that side
of Courtyard, photographs of such obscene activities
have been attached all these activities are visible
from my Balcony, Terrace, Corridor on the First floor,
Dining room this act is not only to outrage the
modesty but also obscene & obnoxious and has
caused mental agony & mental harassment to me::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
9 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )and my wife. Said Smt. Harbans Kaur and her family
used to indulge in such unlawful activities in the past
also and I had reported the matter with the police.
Shri Praveen Kumar is also stalking us, as.
everything is visible from outside into my dining
room. He also makes obscene gestures towards my
wife whenever she goes to the terrace. When I wasclicking his Naked and obscene photographs as
evidence he threatened me to do away with my life. I
have been attacked earlier also by Smt. Harbans
Kaur’s sons the complaint of which was made in theyear 2013 at Sadar Police Station. All the above
harassment is being done with the sole motive and
intention to make us try and sell our property tothem. I am attaching photographs 8 No’s alongwith
this complaint of mine, so kindly take appropriate
action against Smt. Harbans Kaur & her family
members by registering of F.I.R. against them, areain question falls within the jurisdiction of Sadar Police
Station. There is an eminent threat to my life & safetyand the life & safety of my family & staff. Matter may
kindly be investigated properly & the above saidpersons may be booked for the offences. Thanking
you in anticipation.
Sd/- Gaurav Budhraja”
17. After registration of the FIR in question, the police
has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet
against the petitioners, under Sections 354, 506 and 34 of IPC.
18. Now, the petitioners are before this Court for
quashing of the said FIR, mainly on the ground that FIR in
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
10 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
question has been registered against them, on account of civil
dispute, which is pending adjudication in the competent Court of
law, between the parties.
.
19. 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 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 enunciatedby this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, wegive the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercisedeither 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::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
11 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )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 insupport 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 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
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
12 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
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.”
.
20. 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 ofR.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 exception and not the
rule. The section does not confer any new powers onthe High Court. It only saves the inherent power
which the Court possessed before the enactment ofthe 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::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
13 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )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 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
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
14 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
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…..
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
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
15 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
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,
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
16 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
however, necessary that there should 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.”
21. 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:-
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
17 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
“15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is
not permissible for the Court to act as if it were 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.”
22. 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.
23. Being guided by the above settled proposition of
law, now, this Court would proceed further to ascertain the
facts, whether, on the basis of the pendency of the civil
proceedings, the FIR in question, can be quashed.
24. As per documents placed on record, the civil suit
was filed in the year 2013 and the stay application was decided
by the competent Court on 18.07.2013. The civil suit was
instituted by the petitioners, against respondent No.3-Gaurav
Budhraja. The suit was filed by Sanjeev Vermani through his
GPA Harbans Kaur.
25. Initially, the present petition has been filed by
Harbans Kaur wife of Praveen Puri, however, during the
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
18 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
pendency of the lis, before this Court, an application bearing
Cr.MP No.3535 of 2024, was moved, which was decided by this
Court on 12.03.2025 and the name of Harbans Kaur has been
.
ordered to be deleted and the same was substituted by the
name of Dhananjay Puri son of petitioner No.2-Praveen Puri.
Now, the sons of Shyam Lal Puri are the petitioners.
26. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint
shows that the civil dispute between the parties has been
reiterated. r
27. In addition to this, he has got lodged that whenever,
they used to come to Shimla, the son of Harbans Kaur does this
mischievous activities of parking his vehicle in front of their
kitchen door and Harbans Kaur and her family quite often keep
their dogs outside the gate, towards the Courtyard of the
complainant by using the chain to tie the dog with sole motive of
trying to restrain their lawful way, which is restricted and they
will not be able to use the property, whereas, admittedly, the
stay is operating against respondent No.3, as depicted from the
order passed by the Civil Court, dated 18.07.2013, Annexure P-
6. The operative portion of the order dated 18.07.2013, is
reproduced as under:-
“Hence in view of the aforesaid, both the parties are
directed to maintain status quo qua obstruction/blocking::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
19 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )the passage by way of erecting the angel iron nets or in
any other manner situated on the land comprised in
Khasra No.280, Khata Khatauni No.27/31, Khasra
No.281, Up Mohal Tara Hall, Tehsil and District Shimla,.
either himself, his agents, contractor, labourers etc till
final disposal of the main suit. Application disposed of
accordingly. File after due completion be tagged withmain case file.”
28. The said order has been upheld by the Court of
learned District Judge, Shimla, vide judgment dated
18.01.2014. r
29. At the cost of repetition, FIR in question, has been
lodged by respondent No.3, mainly, on the ground of pendency
of the civil litigation, by mentioning, the history of the same and
thereafter, the allegations of obscene act have been levelled.
Those allegations “to sit in the open inseminate condition and to
do oil massage” do not qualify the bare ingredients of Section
354 of IPC. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the
dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature, but,
has been given the disguise of the criminal offence with a vailed
object.
30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra versus
State of Uttarakhand and others, reported as (2013) 11
Supreme Court Cases 673, has held that where, a dispute is
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
20 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
essentially of a civil nature, which has been given cloak of a
criminal offence, High Court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
.
Relevant paragraph 12 of the judgment is reproduced as
under:-
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is
to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventingabuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts allegedtherein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence
are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A
complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether adispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak
of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in thiscase, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court”.
31. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Prof. R.K.
Vijayasarathy and another versus Sudha Seetharam and
another, reported as (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 739
has held that it is the duty of High Court to examine, whether, a
matter which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a
cloak of a criminal offence and if, the required ingredients to
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
21 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
constitute criminal offence are not made out, then, the same will
be nothing, but, the abuse of the process of the Court.
Relevant paragraph 27 is reproduced as under:-
.
“27. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended
that the actions of the first respondent constitute an abuse of
process of the court. It is contended that the present disputeis of a civil nature and the first respondent has attempted to
cloak it with a criminal flavor to harass the aged appellants.
It is also contended that there is an undue delay in filing thecomplaint from which the present appeal arises, and this
demonstrates the mala fide intention of the first respondent
in filing the complaint against the appellants. LearnedSenior Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of
this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy. In that
case, the prosecution alleged that eight of the accused had
conspired to kill the complainant. The Karnataka HighCourt quashed the proceedings on the ground that no
sufficient ground was made out against the accused. A three
Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by the Statewith the following observations:(SCC p.703, para 7)”.
“7…In the exercise of this wholesome power, the
High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if itcomes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to
achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a
court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
22 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object
behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the prosecution
rests and the like would justify the High Court in
.
quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.”
32. A feeble attempt has also been made, when
respondent No.3 has alleged against the petitioners that
Praveen Kumar-petitioner No.2, used to sit in naked condition,
only in his underwear and massage oil with a sole motive, that
on seeing him, complainant party will not go to that side of
Courtyard. The allegations, so levelled, in the complaint, if
seen, in the light of civil dispute, pending between the parties,
as held in the earlier part of the judgment, ingredients of the
offence have not been proved and it can easily be held that the
same are levelled, just to achieve the goal, as sought to be
achieved, in the civil litigation.
33. General allegations have been levelled with a
motive to clothe the civil dispute, with the criminal proceedings.
The allegations, which have been levelled are the reiteration of
the civil dispute, which has been presented, in a new Avatar by
adding the allegations with regard to the alleged obscene
activities of petitioner No.2.
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
23 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
34. In the complaint, simply, it has been mentioned that
on 30.05.2022, when he came to Shimla, then Praveen Kumar
allegedly started doing the obscene activities.
.
35. For lodging the simple matter, the complainant took
about five days, as the matter has been reported to the police
on 18.06.2022.
36. The matter can be seen from another angle. The
pendency of the civil proceedings, between the parties may
give a party to the lis to commit offence, due to the grudge, on
account of pendency of the civil dispute and it will also give the
party to such lis to lodge criminal proceedings, in order to settle
the civil dispute by pressurizing such party, each case is to be
seen, according to the facts and circumstances of the case.
37. In this case, the FIR, has been lodged by
mentioning the factual position regarding the pendency of the
civil dispute and with a view to clothe those proceedings with
criminal proceedings. Vague allegations against petitioner No.2
have been levelled by alleging that he used to sit in semi-naked
condition in the open Courtyard and used to bask in the sun. If
criminal proceedings of such allegations are permitted to be
continued, it would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law.
::: Downloaded on – 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS
24 ( 2025:HHC:26594 )
38. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed
and FIR No.79 of 2022, dated 05.06.2022, registered with
Police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under
.
Sections 341, 354, 506 & 34 of IPC, as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, are ordered to be quashed.
39. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of accordingly.
August 06, 2025
(subhash)
r to (Virender Singh)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:25:21 :::CIS