Himachal Pradesh High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 8 July, 2026
2026:HHC:27509
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
.
Cr.WP No. 14 of 2023
Reserved on 25.06.2026
Pronounced on: 08.07.2026
Uploaded on: 08.07.2026
Court on its own motion ...Petitioner
of
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief
Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Viren Bansal, Advocate with Mr.
Nishant Sharma - Complainant
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,
Additional Advocate General, for
respondents No. 1 & 3.
Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No 2.
Mr. Arjun Lal, Advocate, for
respondent No. 4.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Bhanvi Negi, Advocate, for
respondent No. 4.
Mr. Rajneesh Maniktala, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar,
Advocate, for the intervenors.
Complainant-Nishant Sharma in
person.
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:27509
G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
.
The present petition was initiated on account of
a representation/e-mail dated 28.10.2023, received from
Mr. Nishant Sharma herein called the complainant,
addressed to the then Chief Justice of this Court.
of
2. The status report had been called by the
Coordinate Bench on 10.11.2023 on account of the fact that
rt
there were allegations of intimidation by the then head of
the Police Force, Mr. Sanjay Kundu, the then Director
General of Police (DGP).
3. The grouse in question as such that an attack
had taken place by gangsters at the gate of the parents’
house at Gurugram on 25.08.2023 initially and allegations
were made against Mr. Sachin Shreedhar, Ex IPS Officer,
while naming his brother Tarun Shreedhar, who was a
Senior IAS Officer in the State and one Senior Advocate,
namely, Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, practicing in this Court,
who are stated to be involved with Mr. Sachin Shreedhar.
4. The complainant alleged that he was running
hotel in Palampur and where he was residing since 2000
and Mr. Rakesh Shreedhar brother of Mr. Keshav Dutt
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:27509
Shreedhar, who is residing in America, had invested in
various small scale projects in or around Palampur and used
.
undue force from others for extorting money from him and
forcing to sell the company by threatening auditors and not
allowing to file returns. Mr. Sanjay Kundu, the then DGP,
was stated to have rung up the complainant and asked him
of
to come to Shimla in the said context. At the time of
receiving the call, the complainant was stopped by two men
rt
on a motorcycle on 27.10.2023 and threatened that they
would make the whole family disappear and at that time he
was accompanied by his wife and child. The concerned
Senior Superintendent of Police, Kangra had been contacted
but not having been able to connect with her, the
representation had been received.
5. Vide interim order dated 16.11.2023, on filing of
the status report, Amicus was also appointed and requisite
protection was also provided to the complainant and
assurance was taken by the Court that the FIR would be
registered with regard to the complaint made to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Kangra.
6. Vide detailed order dated 26.12.2023, directions
were issued to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:27509
Superintendent of Police, Kangra, be moved to other posts
to ensure the fair investigation in the FIR No. 55 registered
.
on 16.11.2023, which order was challenged in the SLP No.
54019/2023 filed by Mr. Sanjay Kundu and accordingly the
liberty was granted to the said police officer to move an
application before the High Court for recalling of the order,
of
whereas the transfer order as such was to remain stayed till
the recall application is decided on 03.01.2024. Resultantly,
rt
both the police officers were also impleaded and on
09.01.2024 and the plea for recalling the order was rejected
and the Special Investigation Team as such of the IG level
was to coordinate the investigation.
7. The said order was stayed in SLP No. 3917/2024,
preferred by the Superintendent of Police on 21.03.2024.
Vide order dated 19.04.2024, the Apex Court in SLP No.
3917 of 2024, directed that the Superintendent of Police,
Kangra shall not have any role in relation to the security to
be provided to the complainant and nor shall she interfere
in the investigation by the SIT and since the High Court was
seized of the matter as the order dated 09.01.2024 was
stayed and the matter was to be taken up by this Court, by
disposing of the SLP.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:27509
8. On 22.05.2024, it was directed by the Coordinate
Bench that the final report shall not be filed in FIR No.
.
98/2023, under Section 500 and 505 of the IPC, which had
been registered against the complainant at Shimla on the
basis of the complaint made by Mr. Sanjay Kundu and also
FIR No. 55/2023, registered at the Police Station
of
McLeodganj, under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 regarding
the incident of threat, the basic cause of action as such in
rt
the representation submitted to this Court initially.
9. On 23.09.2024, the Coordinate Bench headed by
the then Chief Justice, directed additions of the Section 384
to 387 of the IPC in FIR No. 55/2023, registered at Police
Station McLeodganj and the SIT to investigate the matter
and the Superintendent of Police level officer from the H.P.
Armed Police Battalion, as approved by the successor
Director General of Police, be added as member of the SIT,
as per the report filed by him, appropriate notification was
to be issued and the matter was listed for filing of status
report, by the Director General of Police, State of Himachal
Pradesh and the SIT.
10. The said order was stayed in SLP No.
45241/2024, filed by Mr. Sanjay Kundu, the then DGP and
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:27509
the judgment and order passed on 23.09.2024 was directed
to be stayed on 01.10.2024.
.
11. An SLP No. 2167/2025 filed by State of Himachal
Pradesh was disposed of on 07.04.2025 the ground that the
investigation has been concluded by the SIT.
12. Resultantly, the proceedings before the
of
Coordinate Bench was thereafter deferred.
13. On 07.02.2025, Cr.W.P. No. 4 of 2025 came to be
rt
filed by the complainant raising a challenge to the order
dated 18.11.2024, passed by the JMIC, Kangra, wherein
status report was called for in an application filed under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the First
Information Report (FIR) against the complainant and his
father – Mr. Kamlesh Sharma. We declined to grant any
interim relief to the present complainant – Mr. Nishant
Sharma since only a status report had been called and the
Superintendent of Police, District Kangra had directed the
SHO, Palampur and McLeodganj to give the details of
movable and immovable properties of the present
petitioner. It was also noticed that there was dispute of
investment made by the Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, the
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:27509
applicant in petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
proceedings. Both the petitions were then clubbed together.
.
14. On 16.09.2025, it was noticed by the Apex Court
that both the FIRs had been looked into by the SIT and two
separate reports had been prepared in both the competent
Courts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra and the
of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla.
15. Keeping in view the arguments raised by the
rt
complainant, directions were issued that the reports be
placed before this Court and this Court shall look into the
reports and it was left open for the discretion of this Court
to allow the two jurisdictional magistrates to proceed
further in accordance with law and it was left open to take
further action if required in the interest of justice. The
security provided to the complainant was ordered to be
discontinued and the contempt proceedings were also
accordingly closed. The relevant part of the order dated
16.09.2025 reads as under:-
“(i) The two reports which have been filed by SIT
before the two Courts of Jurisdictional
Magistrates may remain over there for the
present, however, both the reports should now
be placed before the High Court. The High Court
will look into the reports. We leave it to the::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:27509better discretion of the High Court to proceed
further in accordance with law after looking into.
the reports. It will be open for the High Court to
allow the two jurisdictional magistrates to
proceed further in accordance with law, if
satisfied otherwise.
(ii) Insofar as the directions are concerned as
contained in the Order passed by the High Court
of
dated 23.09.2024, more particularly, addition of
Sections 384 to 387 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 respectively in the FIR No. 55 of 2023 is
concerned, the same shall also be looked into by
rt
the High Court after perusing the two reports
filed by the SIT.
(iii) The Registry shall forward one copy of this
Order at the earliest to the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Chief
Justice shall call for the two reports filed by the
SIT from the respective Courts, referred to above
and thereafter proceed to look into the main
matter further i.e. Writ Petition Crl.No. 14 of
2023 pending before it in accordance with law.
11. This Court had to intervene having regard to
the situation prevailing at the relevant point of
time. We need not now keep monitoring this
litigation for an indefinite period of time. We
believe that the High Court should now look into
the matter further in accordance with law
keeping in mind the two reports filed by the SIT.
We leave it open to the High Court to take
further action if required in the interest of justice
and more particularly if the High Court is
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:27509
dissatisfied with the manner in which the SIT has
undertaken the investigation.
.
12. With the aforesaid both the Special Leave
Petitions stand disposed of and Contempt
Petition (C) No. 505/2025 in SLP(Crl.) No.
14974/2024 stands closed.
13. The security provided to Shri Nishant Sharma
shall now be discontinued. However, if there is
of
any genuine apprehension as regards threat to
his life or to the lives of his family members, he
may approach the High Court and make an
appropriate request in that regard.
rt
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
Contempt Petition (C) No.498 of 2025 in SLP(Crl.)
No.3917 of 2024 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos.
499-500 of 2025 in SLP(Crl.)Nos. 550-551 of
2024
1. Upon being mentioned by the learned counsel
appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, the
above said Contempt Petitions are taken on
Board.
2. In view of the Order passed in the main
matter i.e. SLP(Crl.) No. 14974 OF 2024, these
Contempt Petitions also stand closed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.”
16. It is settled principle that in normal
circumstances, it is for the Magistrate as such to look into
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:27509
the Cancellation Report and take action accordingly after
giving the opportunity to the complainant in case the
.
Cancellation Report is to be submitted or it is within its
jurisdiction to direct further investigation in view of the law
laid down in Abhinandan Jha & Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra,
AIR 1968 SC 117 or in alternate take cognizance. The
of
relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
(15) Then the question is, what is the position when the
rt
Magistrate is dealing with a report submitted by the
police, under Section 173 that no case is made out forsending up an accused for trial, which report as we have
already indicated is called in the area in question as a
‘final report’? Even in those cases, if the Magistrateagrees with the said report he may accept the final
report and close the proceedings. But there may be
instances when the Magistrate may take the view on aconsideration of the final report that the opinion formed
by the police is not based on a full and complete
investigation in which case, in our opinion, the
Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction to give directionsto the police, under S. 156 (3), to make a further
investigation. That is if the Magistrate feels, after
considering the final report, that the investigation is
unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that there is scope for
further investigation, it will be to open to the Magistrate
to decline to accept the final report and direct the police
to make further investigation, under Section 156 (3).
The police, after such further investigation, may submit
a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report,
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:27509
depending upon the further investigation made by
them. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion
.
that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an
offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, under
section 190 (1) (b), notwithstanding the contrary
opinion of the police, expressed in the final report.
17. Similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in
of
Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr., AIR
2003 SC 2612, wherein the learned Single Judge of the
rt
High Court had set aside the cognizance order taken by the
Special Judge and all consequential proceedings had been
quashed, leaving the prosecution to file fresh charge-sheet.
Resultantly, the question which came up for consideration
before the Apex Court was that whether the Court can go to
the validity of the investigation done by the authorities
charged with the duty of investigation and whether error or
illegality committed would vitiate the chargsheet, so as to
render cognizance taken bad and invalid. Resultantly, the
appeal was allowed and the proceedings quashing the
cognizance and further proceedings were set aside keeping
in mind the basic principle that the Magistrate is to accept
the final report and the material collected in the
investigation is justified for prosecution and it may not
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:27509
accept the cancellation and take congnizance of the offence
and summon the accused.
.
18. However, since the Apex Court has ordained us
to also look into the reports, which have been filed by the
SIT and has noticed that separate reports have been
prepared, it has left us to look into the reports and a
of
discretion to proceed further in accordance with law as to
whether the investigation has been done properly. Liberty
rt
has also been given to us if dis-satisfied with the manner
the SIT has undertaken the investigation, it would be open
for us to take further action, if so required in the interest of
justice and resultantly we proceed to discuss the issue
threadbare.
19. It is also relevant to note that in the meantime
the petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the
complainant by Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar was disposed of
by the Magistrate on 02.04.2025 by holding that there is no
prima facie case for commission of the offence, which was
challenged by filing Cr. Rev. No. 345 of 2025, by Mr. Keshav
Dutt Shreedhar and which came to be thereafter allowed on
11.11.2025 and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate
for fresh consideration. We have been told that the matter
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:27509
is now pending consideration before the Apex Court in a
petition filed by the complainant and, therefore, we
.
reserved orders in the present Cr.W.P. No. 14 of 2023 on
25.06.2026 while deferring the proceedings in Cr.W.P. No. 4
of 2025.
20. It is also noteworthy to be kept in mind that the
of
Un-traced Report in FIR No. 350/2023, under Sections 323
and 506, registered by the complainant at Police Station
rt
Sector-9, Gurugram was also accepted by the Magistrate on
05.07.2025 in the absence of the complainant and he has
filed objections against the same.
21. In such circumstances, we are now to decide the
issue as such and look into the Cancellation Reports, which
have been filed in both of the cases in view of the directions
of the Apex Court. It is to be noticed that the FIR No.
55/2023, lodged at the Police Station McLeodganj, was on
account of the fact that on 25.08.2023, he had been
threatened by two persons, who were on a Pulsar Bike, in
the jurisdiction of the said Police Station.
22. The perusal of the said Cancellation Report
would go on to show that SIT reached out to the present
petitioner and recreated the crime scene and examined
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:27509
CCTV footage of the date of the incident but the bike
purportedly used by the assailant remained unidentified in
.
the proceedings. The scene of the crime had been
recreated and various CCTV cameras alongwith the route of
the scene of the crime had been assessed including one of
Ashwani Kiryana Store, Meethanala Karmu Mod, which had
of
been met with the allegation of tampering by the present
complainant. The experts from Forensic Science Laboratory
rt
as such were also involved to trace out the persons who
had threatened the complainant on 27.10.2023. The vendor
who had installed the CCTV cameras were also examined to
corroborate the version of the two brothers of the shop in
question. Interrogation of Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, Mr.
Sachin Shreedhar, Mr. Sanjay Kundu, Ravi Kant Bansal and
Mr. Mast Ram Dalel regarding their involvement was also
done.
23. It was also noticed that the father of the
complainant had come into contact with Mr. Keshav Dutt
Shreedhar way back in early 1990 and friendship had
developed between them and he had persuaded him to
invest in the company Shri Chamunda Laboratories and
Projects Pvt. Ltd, which operated a hotel in Palampur in the
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:27509
name of Sai Gardens, which was initially with 28 rooms and
was expanded to 60 rooms under the joint management of
.
the complainant. There were issues regarding selling the
company property on multiple occasions and Mr. Keshav
Dutt Shreedhar had 51% ownership in the Company.
24. It was noticed that the matter had been taken to
of
National Company Law Tribunal and is still underway
regarding the illegal running business from the company
rt
properties and diversion of the profits to personal accounts
and partnerships without informing the company.
25. It was noticed that the complainant had
acquaintance with Mr. Sanjay Kundu and they had met
when he was Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of H.P.
in the previous government and Mr. Sachin Shreedhar was
also associated regarding his role in the assault incident in
Gurugram and had joined the investigation. He also had
filed a defamation case against the complainant in the
Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Saket, New Delhi.
26. The then Superintendent of Police, Kangra, Ms.
Shalini Agnihotri’s examination as such revealed that she
had discussed the case emphatically with him and
requested the details and later she was accused of inaction
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:27509
on account of not mentioning their telephonic conversation.
The Superintendent of Police, Kangra had provided the
.
audio recording of their conversation as evidence of her
proactive approach.
27. Thus, the SIT which was headed by Mr. Santosh
Patial, IPS, IGP, and Mr. Abhishek Dullar, IPS, IGP/NR also
of
compared the IPDR data of both the mobile numbers of Mr.
Keshav Dutt Shreedhar and Mr. Sachin Shreedhar for the
rt
period 26.10.2023 to 28.10.2023 and confirmed the
absence of any link with the alleged suspects of so called
assailants. The person he had remained in touch was one
Editor of the Newspaper ‘Himachal Dastak’, which was
owned by Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar and the conversation
was business related.
28. Mr. Lokender Negi, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Palampur had provided critical insights into the fact
that the advise had been given to the complainant to
contact the DGP’s official landline number and the call from
the complainant’s mobile had been connected with the
DGP.
29. The Manager Varun Dixit who had earlier worked
with the complainant’s hotel ‘Sai Garden’ from 2017 to
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:27509
2019 had also been examined and he had been acquainted
with Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, Director of the Company
.
operating the said hotel and informed that Mr. Keshav Dutt
Shreedhar had been visiting the hotel and took daily sales
bills as he was interested in the hotel’s revenue. The said
manager had resigned on account of the fact that there was
of
dispute between complainant and Mr. Keshav Dutt
Shreedhar regarding the property proceeds. Even the police
rt
officials posted at Police Post Sector-4, Gurugram were
examined and it was noticed that the complainant had not
provided any clue or evidence against Mr. Keshav Dutt
Shreedhar and incident as such had occurred near his
house but not inside and the suspects were not able to be
identified.
30. It is also noticed that complainant had lunch with
his friend Sonam Wangchuk at Hotel Tibet in McLeodganj
and headed towards Bhagsunag at 5:40 p.m. and the
incident took place at 5:50 p.m, but he had not contacted
the said person and it was noticed that there are only two
routes from McLeodganj to Dharamshala and the assailants
could have been easily apprehended if the police was
informed timely and the complainant had failed to provide a
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
18
2026:HHC:27509
logical explanation. It was also noticed that on the next date
i.e. 28.10.2023 there was cricket match also at
.
Dharamshala and the guest house and hotels were totally
sold out. Accordingly, the SIT had come to the conclusion
that no such incident had occurred on 27.10.2023.
31. While falling back on the statement of one Mr.
of
Rajaeet Kumar (Electrician), who accompanied the
complainant from Palampur to Bhagsunag and back on the
rt
day of the alleged incident had not overheard any such
discussion regarding the call from the higher police official.
It was noticed that on earlier occasion, when he was
assaulted at Gurugram, he immediately rushed to the
nearest police station. The statements of two adjoining
shopkeepers Mr. Sharan Dass and Mr. Ravi Kumar were
recorded, who denied any incident and in the absence of
any direct witness, the Closure Report as such had been
submitted.
32. It was also noticed that since there was a push
for transparency and rectification of the financial mis-
management for Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar and the
pressure was on the complainant to sell stake in the
company or face legal consequences, the said incident was
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
19
2026:HHC:27509
to intended to distract from the findings and to shift the
narrative on his alleged victimization. Resultantly, the
.
following conclusion was arrived at:-
1. Lack of Substantial Evidence: Despite
extensive efforts to collect evidence, including
site visits, CCTV footage analysis, and witness
interviews, no substantial evidence was found toof
support Sh. Nishant Sharma’s allegations. The
CCTV footage did not show any suspicious
motorcycles
rt or activities described by the
complainant, and witness statements did not
corroborate the incident.
2. Inconsistencies in the Complainant’s
Claims: The investigation revealed several
Inconsistencies in Sh. Nishant Sharma’snarrative. For instance, the timeline of events
provided by Sh. Nishnat Sharma did not match
the CCTV footage and other collected evidence.
Additionally, despite his claims of an immediate
threat, Sh. Nishant Sharma did not report the
incident to the local police on the day it
occurred, which is inconsistent with someone
facing a genuine threat.
3. Contradictory Witness Statements:
Numerous witnesses, including local
shopkeepers, residents, hoteliers, taxi-drivers
and police officials, provided statements that
contradicted Sh. Nishant Sharma’s version of
events. None of the interviewed witnesses could
confirm the presence of the alleged assailants or
the occurrence of the described incident.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
20
2026:HHC:27509
4. Fabricated Allegations: The SIT’s
Investigation suggested that Sh. Nishant Sharma
.
had fabricated the story to create a false
narrative against Sh. Keshav Shridhar, Sachin
Shridhar and DGP Sanjay Kundu. This conclusion
was supported by the timing and content of his
communications, which appeared to be
coordinated to frame a particular sequence of
of
events.
5. No Unauthorized Surveillance: Sh. Nishant
Sharma’s claims about being under unauthorized
surveillance were found to be baseless. The SIT’s
rt
investigation with the telecom service provider
and the CID department confirmed that no such
surveillance or tapping of Sh. Nishant Sharma’s
phone had taken place.
6. Ongoing Business Dispute: The
Investigation revealed that Sh. Nishant Sharma
had a longstanding business dispute with Sh.
Keshav Shridhar which likely motivated his
allegations. Legal proceedings regarding
mismanagement and oppression within the
company were already underway, Indicating that
the criminal complaint may have been an
attempt to gain leverage in the business conflict.
7. Complainant’s Non-Cooperation: Sh.
Nishant Sharma exhibited a lack of cooperation
with the Investigation. He refused to sign
observation memos, provide detailed
information, or assist in Identifying suspects,
Instead frequently finding faults with the
investigation process.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
21
2026:HHC:27509
8. No Eyewitness Testimony: Despite the
alleged Incident occurring in a busy area
.
particularly due to a World Cup cricket match,
none of the witnesses confirmed witnessing the
described intimidation or threats.
9. Forensic Analysis Results: Forensic
analysis of the CCTV footage from possible
escape routes which were alleged by Sh. Nishant
of
Sharma as tempered/planted did not show any
tampering or manipulation, further discrediting
Sh. Nishant Sharma’s claims.
10. Telecommunication Data Analysis: The
rt
analysis of call records and tower dump data did
not show any connections to the alleged
suspects or indicate any suspicious activity that
would support Sh. Nishnat Sharma’s allegations.
11. Behavior Post-Incident: Sh. Nishant
Sharma’s behavior after the alleged incident,
including his public disclosures and press
conferences, seemed more aimed at creating a
narrative than seeking justice. His actions
complicated the investigation and suggested an
ulterior motive.
67. The motive for registering a false case
appears to be multifaceted and rooted in this
ongoing business conflict. Here are the key
motives identified:
1. Leverage in Business Dispute: Sh. Nishant
Sharma and the Sh. Keshav Shridhar were
embroiled in a dispute over the management
and ownership of a company that owned
properties in Palampur and Bhagsunag. By
fabricating allegations of threats and::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
22
2026:HHC:27509Intimidation, Sh. Nishant Sharma could have
been attempting to gain leverage in business.
conflicts. The ongoing business disputes and the
financial pressures associated with them could
have driven Sh. Nishant Sharma to take drastic
measures. Registering a false case could have
been an act of desperation to expedite a
resolution In his favor or to retaliate against
of
those he viewed as responsible for his
predicament.
2. Discrediting Opponents: By implicating Sh.
Keshav Shridhar and Sh. Sachin Shridhar in a
rt
criminal case, Sh. Nishant Sharma could have
aimed to discredit them and tarnish their
reputations. This would potentially weaken their
position in the business dispute and any
associated legal battles.
3. Targeting High-Ranking Officials: The
false allegations also involved claims against
high-ranking officials, Including DGP Sanjay
Kundu. By doing so, Sh. Nishant Sharma might
have sought to escalate the matter, attract more
attention, and possibly create additional
pressure on the Individuals he perceived as
adversaries. High-profile cases Involving threats
and intimidation can attract significant media
and public attention. Sh. Nishant Sharma might
have been attempting to use this case to draw
public and media to his plight, thereby applying
indirect pressure on Sh. Keshav Shridhar and
other involved parties.
4. Seeking Protection and Sympathy: By
portraying himself and his family as victims of
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
23
2026:HHC:27509
serious threats, Sh. Nishant Sharma could have
been seeking protection from the authorities and
.
public sympathy. This might have also been a
strategic move to gain a more favorable position
in both the business dispute and any related
negotiations.
5. Legal Diversion: Registering a criminal case
might have been a strategy to divert attention
of
from ongoing Investigations or legal actions
against him, such as the case of
mismanagement and oppression within the
company. By creating a new and dramatic legal
rt
battle, he could have been trying to shift focus
away from his own legal challenges.
6. Emotional Manipulation: By presenting
himself and his family as victims, Sh. Nishant
Sharma could have been attempting to
manipulate the emotional responses of
authorities, the public, and potential supporters.
This could have been a way to garner sympathy
and support, which might be used to his
advantage in various ways.
7. Delaying Tactics: Creating a complex legal
scenario with multiple allegations and high-
profile targets might have been a tactic to delay
proceedings in the ongoing business dispute.
This could buy Sh. Nishant Sharma more time to
prepare his case or negotiate from a position of
perceived victimhood.
8. Intimidation: By involving high-ranking
police officials in his fabricated allegations, Sh.
Nishant Sharma might have been attempting to
intimidate his opponents into backing down from
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
24
2026:HHC:27509
the business dispute or agreeing to more
favorable terms for him.
.
33. Resultantly, the SIT came to the conclusion that
a false case was filed by the complainant to manipulate the
legal system, distract attention from the findings and gain
upper hand in his business disputes, while submitting the
of
Cancellation Report.
34. In similar circumstances, the FIR No. 98/2023
rt
lodged by Sanjay Kundu, DGP was directed to be closed on
account of the fact that offence as such is primarily non-
cognizable to which no exception can be undertaken as
such.
35. A perusal of the Cancellation Report submitted in
FIR No. 98/2023, would go on to show that the SIT came to
the conclusion after examining the statements of the
parties as such recorded that the complainant – Mr. Nishant
Sharma had been making complaint against the Director
General of Police (DGP) without any substantial basis and
circulating e-mails as such thereby tarnishing his image and
reputation. The business rivalry was the sole cause as such
with Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, who was Standing Counsel
for the Government of Himachal Pradesh and was known to
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
25
2026:HHC:27509
Mr. Sanjay Kundu on account of the professional
acquaintance.
.
36. It was noticed that the father of the complainant
Mr. K. K. Sharma was known to Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar
since 1990 and there were disputes as such regarding the
shareholding in the company in question. The contact by
of
Mr. Sanjay Kundu on telephone on 27.10.2023 was only on
account of the fact that Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar had
rt
come to his office on 09.10.2023 and informed him
regarding the objections and allegations levelled against
him by the complainant through e-mail and he had been
asked to resolve the matter amicably and in such
circumstances, efforts were made to converse with the
complainant – Mr. Nishant Sharma and the conversation had
taken place on the official land line for 63 seconds. The
investigating agency accordingly came to the conclusion
that Mr. Sanjay Kundu did not have any prior acquaintance
as such with Mr. Nishant Sharma and the timing of the
phone call was at the time when he was allegedly
obstructed by two unknown persons and, therefore, he had
suspected the involvement of the said officer.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
26
2026:HHC:27509
37. The material circulated by the complainant –
Nishant Sharma had been considered defamatory and, thus,
.
the present case had been registered and resultantly, the
investigating agency came to the conclusion that there was
no such official government duty and the act could not be
connected with the affairs of the State and there was no
of
evidence pertaining to offence under Sections 327, 506,
120B IPC and the said sections were removed. Resultantly,
rt
it was found that Sections 499 and 500 IPC relate to the
offence of defamation and the Court could only take
cognizance upon the complaint made by the person
aggrieved and resultantly also deleted Section 505 IPC as
there was nothing adverse of the allegations against the
character and functioning of the police force.
38. Thus, keeping in view the above, we are of the
considered opinion that the necessary exercise has been
done. We do not find that SIT had faulted in any manner
and the only argument which has been raised by the
complainant is that the Cancellation Report had been
wrongly filed during the pendency of the litigation in the
Supreme Court and since there were directions dated
22.05.2024 by the Coordinate Bench not to file the final
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
27
2026:HHC:27509
report in both the FIRs i.e. FIR No. 55/2023 and FIR No.
98/2023, and reports submitted should not be taken into
.
consideration.
39. We are of the considered opinion that there is no
weight in the said argument as it has already been noticed
above that on 09.04.2024, it had already been directed by
of
the Apex Court that the Superintendent of Police, Kangra,
will not have any role and nor interfere in the investigation
rt
by the SIT. Thereafter, the SLP filed by the State of
Himachal Pradesh i.e. SLP No. 2167/2025, was disposed of
on 07.04.2025 that the investigation had already been
concluded by the SIT. Eventually order dated 16.09.2025
came to be passed noting the background as such that both
the FIRs had been looked into by the SIT and the separate
reports had been prepared and it thus led to the filing of the
the contempt petition and the argument was raised that
two reports should have been filed before the High Court
and not before the Magistrate, in view of the earlier order
dated 19.04.2024, which led to the directions that the said
report should also be placed before this Court to examine
whether the investigation as such was satisfactory or not.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
28
2026:HHC:27509
40. Accordingly, reliance can be placed upon the
judgment in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak &
.
Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 762, wherein also the Apex Court was
considering that the Delhi Police had filed a report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and there was a closure report by CBI
and, therefore, left it open for the trial court as such to
of
accept the application of the accused for discharge or direct
the trial court to proceed in accordance with law and if dis-
rt
satisfied on important aspect of the investigation, it could
direct further investigation. Resultantly, the Apex Court
modified the order of the High Court wherein it had been
observed that once the report was filed by the CBI, the said
agency has to be treated as the investigating agency and
the closure report ought to have been considered by the
trial court.
41. In Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 48, the High Court had proceeded to
direct Magistrate to give directions to the police to further
investigate the case in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., as it
was of the opinion that the District Manager of the Corporation
was responsible for the illegality and the Class-IV employee
was hauled up ‘as a scapegoat to save the skin’. Resultantly,
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
29
2026:HHC:27509
the said order was upheld by only mentioning that the
investigation contemplated should be allowed to be taken
.
to its logical end while effacing the unwarranted and
unnecessary observations of the High Court lest there be
any prejudice to any party.
42. In sum and substance, the power of the
of
Magistrate was kept in mind keeping in view the law laid
down in Abhinandan Jha‘s case (supra).
rt
43. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in Sushila Devi vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors., 2014 (1) SCC 269, to this extent, wherein there
was issue as such whether the Apex Court as such had to
keep on continuing to monitor of the matter in question and
then the matter had been investigated and charge-sheet as
such had been filed, which was a case as such pertaining to
the provisions of the IPC including Sections 302, 364, 346,
201 etc.
44. Resultantly, the Apex Court while placing
reliance upon the judgments in Vineet Narain vs. Union
of India (1998) 1 SCC 226, Union of India vs. Sushl
Kumar Modi (1998) 8 SCC 661, came to the conclusion
that the whole purpose was to ensure proper and honest
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
30
2026:HHC:27509
performance of the duty by the investigating agency and
not to the merits of the accusation, which had to be
.
determined at the trial.
45. Reference was also made to M. C. Mehta vs.
Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 110, which was a Taj
Corridor case, including the judgment in Jakia Nasim
of
Ahesan vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 12 SCC 302 and
backed up the judgment in Narmada Bai vs. State of
rt
Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79, and resultantly, it was held that
once the investigation is complete, it would not be proper
for the Supreme Court to keep on monitoring the trial.
46. The position remains the same herein since once
the investigating agency has come to the valid conclusion
that as discussed above, that the incident appears to be
only an after thought or a dilatory tactics on account of the
business disputes between the parties and having sought to
be highlighted and the justification given does not suffer
from any infirmity.
47. Similarly, the FIR lodged by Mr. Sanjay Kundu is
primarily on the count that the present complainant – Mr.
Nishant Sharma apparently had circulated various e-mails
against him and, thus, on account of him having at the
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
31
2026:HHC:27509
instance of Mr. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, having asked him to
get touch with him, it was in such circumstances, there was
.
an umbrage on account of the high ranking police officer as
to how e-mails were being circulated blaming him to call for
settling the matter.
48. It was in such circumstances, that the
of
investigating agency has also come to the conclusion that
there was no such official responsibility or the complainant
rt
had not intruded into the professional duties of the police
officer and, therefore, the investigating agency had come to
the conclusion that the offences were only made out of
Sections 499 and 500, for which the complaint would lie.
49. In such circumstances, we do not find that the
investigations as such in both the cases are conducted
without any ulterior motive or have left any loose ends and
the logical finding is apparently arrived prima facie, we,
however, leave the said issue, in view of the observations
made above that eventually it is for the Magistrate to go
into the said issue and to either accept the Cancellation
Report or take cognizance or order further investigation, if
so required.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
32
2026:HHC:27509
50. Resultantly, we do not wish to further comment
upon the matter and leaving the parties as such to agitate
.
for their right before the Court of competent jurisdiction,
namely, the Magistrates, regarding the Cancellation Report
submitted, if still aggrieved by the same.
51. Keeping in view of the above, we are of the
of
considered opinion that no further orders are required in the
matter which was initiated on the representation filed by
rt
the complainant and the proceedings are necessarily have
to be dropped herein with liberty to give notice to
complainant – Nishant Sharma. Mr. Sanjay Kundu is also free
to file objections against the cancellation and it is open to
him to file a complaint as such under the relevant
provisions of law, otherwise.
52. The proceedings are disposed of accordingly with
the aforesaid liberty.
(G. S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Bipin C. Negi)
8 th
July, 2026 Judge
(sanjeev)
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2026 20:35:30 :::CIS
