02.03.2026 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 21 April, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 02.03.2026 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                           2026:HHC:12491




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                              Cr. MMO No. 774 of 2025
                                              Reserved on: 02.03.2026




                                                                                   .

                                              Date of Decision: 21.04.2026.

    Abhishek Kumar                                                                ...Petitioner





                                           Versus

    State of H.P. and others                                                     ...Respondents




                                                    of
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
                        rt
    Whether approved for reporting?1                   No.

    For the Petitioner                          :      Mr Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate.
    For Respondents/State                       :      Mr   Ajit   Sharma,                 Deputy
                                                       Advocate General.



    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge:

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of FIR No. 0056 of 2025, dated 10.04.2025, registered

for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 121(1),

132, 190, 191(2), 324(4), and 333 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

(BNS), 2023 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property (PDP) Act, 1984 at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra,

H.P. and also consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
2

2026:HHC:12491

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the

informant, Head Constable Surender Singh, was posted as

.

Investigating Officer in Police Post Dadasiba. He was present in

the Police Post on 09.04.2025 along with his staff. Constable

Yusuf Deen was sitting outside the Police Post. The petitioner

Abhishek Kumar, his brother, Parikshit, Om Dutt, Lucky, Kalu

of
and two other people came to the Police Station and told

Constable Yusuf Deen that they had to make a complaint about a
rt
threat extended to Lucky by liquor contractors from Punjab.

Ankush alias Hondo, Aashu and Anku also reached the spot, in

two different vehicles with 10-12 people. Ankush alias Hondo

enquired as to who was saying that he would sell illicit liquor.

Petitioner Abhisek Kumar started video recording the incident.

Ankush and other people asked the petitioner why he was video

recording the incident. The petitioner replied that he was a

journalist and was preparing a video of the incident. Both parties

started quarrelling with each other outside the Police Post. The

informant was carrying out the investigation, and he was

obstructed in the discharge of his duties. He came out of the

Police Post and requested the people not to quarrel with each

other. However, both parties continued to abuse each other. Ashu

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:12491

and Kalu caught each other by the throat and started beating each

other. The informant and other police officials tried to rescue

.

Ashu, Kalu and other persons. The petitioner entered the police

Post while video recording the incident. Ashu, Kalu and other

people also tried to enter the Police Post. Constable Yusuf Deen

tried to prevent them from entering the Police Post. However, he

of
was pushed, and the door of the Police Post was damaged. The

articles lying inside the Police Post were picked up by the persons
rt
and thrown at each other. The laptop, keyboard and mouse were

damaged in the incident. The informant asked the people to go

outside the Police Post, but they refused. They pushed the

informant, and he sustained injuries. All the persons except the

petitioner left the Police Post, and the petitioner continued to

video record the incident. The people who had gone outside the

Police Post tried to re-enter the post. The matter was reported to

the police, and the police investigated the FIR.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the

petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that he has been

a journalist since 2022. He was present at Dadasiba to cover news

events. He went to the Police Post after hearing the noise and

started covering the incident happening outside the Police Post

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:12491

Dadasiba. The petitioner had not caused any interruption to the

police in the discharge of their official duties. He had also not

.

caused any damage to the public property. The petitioner was

prevented from video recording the incident, and he had made a

complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dehra, District

Kangra, H.P., regarding the incident. The allegations of the FIR,

of
even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission

of any cognizable offence; therefore, it was prayed that the FIR
rt
and the proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed against the

petitioner.

4. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the

petitioner was asked to produce the documents regarding his

status as a journalist, but he did not produce any documents and

went outside the Police Post. The petitioner’s brothers were asked

to call the petitioner, but his phone was found to be busy. Om

Dutt revealed subsequently that the petitioner had circulated a

live video in which he was threatening to commit suicide. The

petitioner was found on the riverbank of the Beas River, and he

had consumed some poison. He was admitted to the hospital, and

his samples were preserved. The accused had damaged the door

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:12491

of the Police Post, which was worth ₹19,186/-. Many cases were

registered against the petitioner. The CCTV footage of the

.

incident was seized. As per the report of RFSL, Dharamshala,

Phenol was detected in the petitioner’s samples. The petitioner

has wrongly asserted in his petition that he was present at the

place of the incident as a journalist. He was involved in the

of
commission of the offence with the other co-accused. Hence, the

status report.

5.
rt
I have heard Mr Ram Lal Thakur, Ld. counsel for the

petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for the respondent/State.

6. Mr Ram Lal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely

implicated. The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be

correct, do not constitute the commission of any cognizable

offence. The petitioner is a journalist, and he was video recording

the incident. He had not caused any obstruction to any police

official. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and

the FIR registered against the petitioner, and the proceedings

arising out of the said FIR be quashed.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
6

2026:HHC:12491

7. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for

the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved

.

in the commission of the crime with the other co-accused. The

petitioner and the co-accused had damaged the door of the Police

Post Dadasiba and obstructed the informant in the discharge of

his official duties. The police have completed the investigation

of
and filed the charge sheet before the Court. This Court should not

exercise the inherent jurisdiction vested with it and should leave
rt
the matter to the learned Trial Court, which is seized of the

matter. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 7 as under: –

“7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it
is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to
be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the
decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised
some of the principles under which
FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the
following words:

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
7

2026:HHC:12491

“102. 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

of
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.

rt (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 within 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 FIR 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.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
8

2026:HHC:12491

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable based on 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

of
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
rt proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to a
private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added)

8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would
be of relevance to us in this case.

In clause (1), it has been mentioned that 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, then the
FIR or the complaint can be quashed.

As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in
such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.
Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:12491

proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be
quashed.”

10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of

.

Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:

“8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may

issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to
secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are
neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory

of
provision. However, given the broad and profound nature
of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly.
The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded
within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High
rt
Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where
intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.

9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of
several decades, has laid down the principles and
guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-

empting the Prosecution from building its case before the
Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia,
contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal

complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie

offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.)
the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations;
and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the

dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335)

11. The present petition is to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12. The allegations in the FIR show that the petitioner and

his brother had visited the Police Post along with some other

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:12491

persons, complaining of a threat advanced to Lucky. The other

persons came to the spot, and both parties started quarrelling

.

with each other. The petitioner started video recording the

incident. He entered the Police Post and continued to video record

the incident. The fact that the petitioner was video recording the

whole incident right from the beginning till the end clearly shows

of
that he was not involved in beating any person or obstructing any

police official in the discharge of their official duties.

13.
rt
The informant asserted in the FIR that he was carrying

out the investigation, and the quarrel between the persons caused

obstructions to him. This is not sufficient. It was laid down by the

Supreme Court B.N. John (supra) that there must be an assault or

criminal force meant to deter a public servant from discharging

his official duties. It was observed:

“23. For a prohibited act to come within the scope of the
offence under Section 353 of the IPC, such an act must
qualify either as an assault or criminal force meant to deter

a public servant from the discharge of his duty. Obviously,
such an act cannot be a mere act of obstruction, which is an
offence under Section 186 of the IPC. The offence
contemplated under Section 353 of the IPC is of a more
serious nature involving criminal force, or assault, which
attracts more stringent punishment that may extend to
two years. On the other hand, the offence of obstruction
covered under Section 186 of the IPC is punishable by

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:12491

imprisonment, which may extend to three months at the
maximum.

A close examination of Section 353 of the IPC would
indicate that to invoke the aforesaid offence, there must be

.

use of criminal force or assault on any public servant in the

execution of his official duty or with the intent to prevent
or deter such public servant from discharging his duty. It
would be clear from a reading of the provisions of Section

186 as well as Section 353 of the IPC that Section 353 of the
IPC is the aggravated form of offence where criminal force
or assault is involved. Unlike in the case of Section 186 of

of
the IPC, where voluntarily obstructing any public servant
in the discharge of his official function is sufficient to
invoke the said section, in the case of an offence under
Section 353 of the IPC, as mentioned above, not only
rt
obstruction but actual use of criminal force or assault on
the public servant is necessary.

24. In the present case, however, what can be seen from a
perusal of the contents of the FIR is that no such allegation
of assault or use of criminal force has been made. The
aforesaid FIR is based on the complaint filed by the District

Probation Officer, which has already been quoted above,
and the same has been reproduced verbatim in the said
FIR, in which only the allegation of creating disturbance

has been made.

25. In the FIR, there is no allegation of use of criminal force

or assault by the appellant so as to invoke the provision of
Section 353 of the IPC. It is to be remembered that a
criminal process is initiated only with the lodging of an

FIR. Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia
containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is
merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the
criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of
the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it
would be susceptible to being quashed as held in Bhajan
Lal‘s case (supra) (vide clause 1 of Para 102 of the decision).

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
12

2026:HHC:12491

This Court in CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175,
observed as follows:

“20. It is well settled that a first information report is
not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and

.

details relating to the offence reported. An informant

may lodge a report about the commission of an offence,
though he may not know the name of the victim or his
assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence

took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an
eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all
aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance

of
is that the information given must disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence, and the information so lodged must
provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the
commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, it is
rt
enough if the police officer, on the basis of the
information given, suspects the commission of a

cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced
or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of
information received, that a cognizable offence may

have been committed, he is bound to record the
information and conduct an investigation. At this stage,
it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about

the truthfulness of the information………………………”

(emphasis added)

26. However, a perusal of the FIR in issue does not at all
indicate the commission of any crime of use of criminal
force or assault by the appellant against the public servant,

except for the offence of obstruction, which is punishable
under Section 186 of the IPC. As such, the ingredients of
the offence under Section 353 of the IPC are clearly absent
in the FIR. To that extent, we are in agreement with the
appellant that since no ingredient for the offence under
Section 353 of the IPC is found in the FIR, taking
cognisance by the CJM of an offence that is not made out in
the FIR does not appear to be correct.”

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
13

2026:HHC:12491

14. In the present case, there is no evidence that any

assault or criminal force was caused to the informant by the

.

petitioner. The status report repeatedly mentions that the

petitioner continued to video record the incident. Therefore, the

contents of the status report do not show the commission of an

offence punishable under Section 132 of the BNS.

of

15. The police have registered the FIR for the commission

of offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 121(1) and
rt
324(4) of BNS. Section 121(1) of BNS punishes a person who

voluntarily causes hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant

from his duty. The status report nowhere mentions that the

petitioner had caused any hurt to any police official with the

intent to deter him from discharging his duties. Hence, the

allegation in the FIR does not satisfy the requirements of Section

121(1) of BNS.

16. Section 190 of BNS deals with the members of an

unlawful assembly, and Section 191 (2) of BNS deals with rioting.

As per the status report, the petitioner was merely video

recording the incident. The status report does not show that he

had caused any hurt to any person or damage to any property.

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
14

2026:HHC:12491

Therefore, the allegations in the status report do not satisfy the

requirements of these sections.

.

17. Section 324 (4) of BNS deals with mischief. The status

report does not mention that the petitioner had caused damage to

any property. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 324 (4) and

Section 3 of the PDPP Act are not satisfied.

of

18. Section 333 of the BNS deals with house trespass after

preparing for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. The status
rt
report specifically mentions that the petitioner had entered the

Police Post to video record the incident. Therefore, there was no

house trespass with the intent to cause hurt to any person.

19. It was submitted that the petitioner had not produced

any document showing that he was a journalist. This submission

will not help the State because even if the petitioner were not a

journalist, video recording the incident did not constitute any

offence.

20. Therefore, the submission that the allegations in the

FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the

commission of any cognizable offence has to be accepted as

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:12491

correct, and the continuation of the proceedings against the

petitioner cannot be permitted.

.

21. No other point was urged.

22. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and

F.I.R. No. 0056 dated 10.04.2025, registered for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 132, 121(1) and

of
324 (4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 is ordered to be

quashed qua the petitioner. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR,
rt
criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner

(Abhishek Kumar) in pursuance thereof are also ordered to be

quashed.

23. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also

pending applications, if any.

24. The observations made herein before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing

whatsoever on the merits of the case.

25. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment,

downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal

Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:12491

shall not insist on the production of a certified copy, but if required,

may verify passing of the order from the website of the High Court.

.

(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
21st April, 2026

(ravinder)

of
rt

::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2026 20:33:22 :::CIS