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, mayissue 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 statutoryof
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 criminalcomplaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facieoffence 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 thedispute 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 detera 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:12491imprisonment, 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 Section186 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 ofof
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 DistrictProbation 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 disturbancehas 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 anFIR. 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 occurrencetook 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 significanceof
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 acognizable 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 mayhave 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 aboutthe 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
[ad_1]
Source link
