Kulwinder Kaur vs State Of H.P on 25 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kulwinder Kaur vs State Of H.P on 25 March, 2026

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1148 of 2025
Date of Decision: 25.03.2026

.

_______________________________________________________

Kulwinder Kaur
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P.

….Respondent
_______________________________________________________
Coram:

of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.

For the Petitioner: rt Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi

Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General.

_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer

has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.48

of 2020, dated 20.04.2020, under Sections 269, 270, 188 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 51(A) of Disaster Management Act,

registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., as well as

consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.39/2022, titled as

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kulwinder Kaur, pending

1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
2

adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Indora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the

respective parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings came to be instituted against the petitioner on the

of
precise allegation that on 24.04.2020, Police received written rukka

against the petitioner, alleging therein that in violation of restrictions
rt
imposed by the Government on account of Covid-19, she travelled

from Punjab to her in-laws at Kandrodi, District Kangra, Himachal

Pradesh. After receipt of aforesaid communication, police conducted

investigation and found that on 09.04.2020, petitioner along with her

brother-in-law Pawan Kumar and her son travelled from Punjab to her

in-laws at Kandrodi, as a result thereof, residents of Village Kandrodi

came under threat of Corona infection. In the afore background, FIR

sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner.

3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has

already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the

petitioner, but before the same could be taken to its logical end,

petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for

quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending

adjudication in the competent court of law.

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
3

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjay

.

Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though District

Magistrate, Kangra, had issued curfew order dated 24.03.2020, but

petitioner had gone to her maternal house, a day prior to the issuance

of curfew order. After residing about 16 days in her maternal house,

of
she returned back to her in-laws on 09.04.2020 by which date, curfew

order dated 24.03.2020 stood withdrawn. Learned counsel for the
rt
petitioner further argued that as per statements of the then Secretary

Gram Panchayat Toki (Plumber Dass) as well as Ms. Anuradha

Kumari, (ASHA Worker), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, factum

with regard to arrival of the petitioner in afore Gram Panchayat came

to their knowledge on 20.04.2020 and as per directions of SDM/BDO,

the petitioner was quarantined for a period of 28 days in her home.

During this period, neither the petitioner nor her son was found to be

infected with the corona virus. It is argued by learned counsel for the

petitioner that since curfew order dated 24.03.2020 was not within the

knowledge of general public of the concerned area under PS Damtal

and same was handed over to the police on 21.06.2020 by the office

of PS Indora as has been stated by Sh. Somraj (Reader) of SDM,

Indora and thereafter, matter with regard to violation of Covid-19

restrictions, if any, at the behest of the petitioner came to the

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
4

knowledge of the local administration after her having been

quarantined for a period of 28 days, there was otherwise no occasion

.

to lodge FIR. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

since it is admitted case of the parties that neither the petitioner nor

her son was infected with the coronavirus and on account of their

travel from Punjab to Kandrodi, Kangra, no infection was transmitted

of
to general public, FIR lodged against her deserves to be quashed and

set aside.

5.
rt
While making this Court peruse notification dated

07.02.2023 issued by the Additional Secretary (Home) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh to all the District Magistrates

except District Magistrate, Hamirpur, Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned

counsel for the petitioner, stated that otherwise also, Government

itself decided to cancel/close or withdraw cases lodged against the

persons for their having violated instructions issued by the

administration from time to time in the wake of Covid-19.

6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

Advocate General, while refuting the prayer made on behalf of

petitioner, submitted that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on

record suggestive of the fact that on the date of alleged incident,

petitioner had violated social distancing norms and she travelled from

Punjab to her maternal house Kandrodi without there being any

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
5

permit issued by the competent authority, as a result thereof, great

danger was caused to residents of Village Kandrodi on account of

.

Covid-19. However, Mr. Kahol, fairly submitted that otherwise also, in

terms of notification dated 07.02.2023 issued by the Additional

Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, prayer

made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR can be accepted.

of

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record, this Court finds that though allegations in
rt
the FIR sought to be quashed suggests that on the date of alleged

incident, petitioner violated social distancing norms and she travelled

from Punjab to Kandrodi, District Kangra during curfew and no permit,

if any, was ever issued by the competent authority to the petitioner to

undertake journey, as a result thereof, she became liable to be

prosecuted under Sections 188 and 202 IPC.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the records.

9. Precisely, the ground as has been raised in the instant

petition for quashing of FIR is that no case under Sections 269, 270,

188 of Indian Penal Code and Section 51(A) of Disaster Management

Act could be initiated without there being written complaint to the

higher ups. Careful perusal of provision contained in Section 195 of

CrPC clearly reveals that no Court shall take cognizance of the

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
6

offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860), except on the complaint in writing by the

.

complainant. Section 195 reads as under:

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants,
for offences against public justice and for offences relating to

documents given in evidence.

(i) No Court shall take cognizance-

of

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both
inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
rt

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the
complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other

public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196

(both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228,
when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in
relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under

section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any

Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or
the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub-

clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of
some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under
clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is
administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
7

complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its
receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the
complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the
trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

.

(3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term” Court” means a Civil,
Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or
under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be

a Court for the purposes of this section.

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall
be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals

of
ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such
former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no
appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original
rt
civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in
situate: Provided that-

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the
Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to
which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue

Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to
the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the

case or proceeding in connection with which the offence
is alleged to have been committed.”

10. Having taken note of the provisions contained in Section

195 Cr.P.C, which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the

order, this Court finds that no court shall take cognizance of the

Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC, except on the

complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that

Court is subordinate. Where a complaint is made by a public servant

under clause (a) of sub-section (1), any authority to which he is

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
8

subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send copy

of the such order to the Court and upon its receipt by the Court, no

.

further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint, provided no such

withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the first instance has been

concluded. Since in the case at hand, public servant while initiating

action against the petitioner did not send the copy of the complaint to

of
the higher ups, enabling it to apply its mind, prosecution lodged

against the petitioner under Section 188 is otherwise not sustainable.

rt
In the event of copy being supplied to the higher-ups, there was a

possibility that such authority could order the public servant to

withdraw the complaint. Since in the case at hand, aforesaid

procedure never came to be followed/adopted, case registered

against the petitioner under Sections 269, 270 & 188 of IPC is

otherwise not sustainable.

11. The Gujarat High Court in judgment dated 15.2.2019,

titled Mohmadmohsin mohmadirfan Chhalotiya v. State of

Gujarat, in R/Special Criminal Application No. 4105 of 2017 2019(2)

RCR (Criminal) 397, has held as under:

“7 In order to appreciate the rival contentions on the aforesaid
issue, it will be apposite to have closer look at some of the decisions
of the Supreme Court for ascertaining the true nature and import of
the provisions of section 195 of the Code.

Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: Section 195: Prosecution
for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
9

against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence:

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-(a) (i) of any offence punishable
under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code,

.

or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the

complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administrative subordinate;

of

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections
of the Indian Penal Code, namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such
rt
offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under
section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any

Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or

the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-

clause (ii), a [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by

such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in
this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.]

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under
clause (a) of subsection (1) any authority to which he is
administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the
complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its
receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the
complaint:Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the
trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
10

(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil,
Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or
under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be
a Court for the purposes of this section.

.

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall
be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals

ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such
former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no
appeal ordinarily lies to the principal Court having ordinary original

of
civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is
situate: Provided that-

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of
rt
inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be
deemed to be subordinate;

(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such
Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue
Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in
connection with which the offence is alleged to have been

committed. (Emphasis supplied by me)”

8.The first in point of time is the decision of the Supreme Court is in
the case of Basir-ulHaq (supra). (The relevant sections considered

are sections 182, 297 and 500 of the IPC). The relevant
observations are incorporated as under:

14. Though, in our judgment, Section 195 does not bar the

trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by
the same facts and which is not included within the ambit of
that section, it has also to be borne in mind that the
provisions of that section cannot be evaded by resorting to
devices or camouflages. The test whether there is evasion of
the section or not is whether the facts disclose primarily and
essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of
the public servant is required. In other words, the provisions
of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
11

person with an offence to which that section does not apply
and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, upon
the ground that such latter offence is a minor offence of the
same character, or by describing the offence as being one

.

punishable under some other section of the Indian penal
Code, though in truth and substance the offence falls in the
category of sections mentioned in Section of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Merely by changing the garb or label of
an offence which is essentially all offence covered by the
provisions of Section 195 prosecution for such an offence

of
cannot be taken cognizance of by mis-describing it or by
putting a wrong label on it.

rt

9. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved the decision of the Full
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Satis Chandra

Chakravarti v. Ram Dayal De, AIR 1921 Cal 1, and has held that
section 195 of the Cr.P.C does not bar the trial of an accused
person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same facts and which
is not included within the ambit of that section, it has also to be

borne in mind that the provisions of that section cannot be evaded
by resorting to devices or camouflages.”

12. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that there is no

independent witness associated by the prosecution to prove the case

against the petitioner. Since evidentiary material placed on record is

not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have

been committed by him, there is no justification to let the petitioner

face the ordeal of protracted trial, which would otherwise culminate in

the acquittal.

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
12

13. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana

and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has

.

held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes

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. Relevant para is being

of
reproduced herein below:-

“7….In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
rt
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 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. The

ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice
has got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations

is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the
provision which seeks to save the 5 inherent powers of the High
Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be
impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction.”

14. Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and

Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
13

interference under Sections 397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High

Courts, has held that High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it

.

comes 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 proceedings ought to quashed. The Hon’ble

Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court’s

of
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to

achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to
rt
be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or

persecution. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking

note of seven categories, where power can be exercised under

Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), i.e. where

a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or

where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive

for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him

due to private and personal grudge, quashed the proceedings.

15. Moreover, this court finds that State of Himachal Pradesh

vide notification dated 07.02.2023 issued by the Additional Secretary

(Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh directed all the

District Magistrates except District Magistrate, Hamirpur, to take steps

to close/ cancel or withdraw the proceedings if any, initiated against

the violators of social distancing norms. In the aforesaid

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
14

communication, it has been recorded that social distances norms

were promulgated to curb the Pandemic and to prevent the spread

.

thereof. Since, to great extent, State has been able to achieve its

objective in curbing the Pandemic, Government after having

deliberated upon the matter, decided to close/ cancel/ withdraw such

FIRs/cases, registered across the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the

of
public interest.

16. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above and
rt
law taken into consideration, there appears to be sufficient ground for

this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C (Section 528 of BNSS), for quashing of FIR and consequent

criminal proceedings against the petitioner, to prevent abuse of

process of law and to prevent unnecessary harassment of the

petitioner against whom there is no evidence to connect her with the

commission of offences as incorporated in the FIR. Otherwise also,

continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the

present case would be a sheer wastage of time of the learned trial

Court and the same would amount to subjecting the petitioner to

unnecessary and protracted ordeal of trial, which is bound to

culminate in acquittal. If the evidentiary material collected on record

to prove the guilt of the petitioner is perused in its entirety, this is no

sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS
15

have been committed by him. To the contrary, if, on the basis of

material adduced on record by the investigating agency, trial is

.

allowed to continue, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner

and same would amount to sheer abuse of process of law.

17. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well

as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.48 of

of
2020, dated 20.04.2020, under Sections 269, 270, 188 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 51(A) of Disaster Management Act,
rt
registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., as well as

consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the

competent court of law are quashed and set aside.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge
March 25, 2026

(sunil)

::: Downloaded on – 03/04/2026 20:36:07 :::CIS