Himachal Pradesh High Court
Munish Kumar And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 31 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CrMMO No.192 of 2012-G
Date of Decision: 31.7.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
Munish Kumar and Anr.
...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
....Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
rt
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Tarun Brakta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate
General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish
Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for
respondent No.1/State.
Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Karan Veer Singh, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners-accused (in short
“accused”) for quashing of FIR No.245 dated 23.09.2011, registered under
Sections 379, 420, 403 and 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station
Haroli, Tehsil & District Una, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent
proceedings pending adjudication competent Court of law.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
2
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as
well as other material adduced on record by respective parties are that FIR
sought to be quashed in the present proceedings was lodged at the behest
of respondent No.2-Rakesh Kumar (in short “complainant”), who alleged
of
that on 10.08.2010, accused, namely Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, came
to him at Village Santokhgarh, Tehsil & District Una, claiming themselves
rt
to be owners-in-possession of the Truck bearing No. HP-12A-6369 and
made an offer to sell the aforesaid truck for total sale consideration of
Rs.6,40,000/-. Complainant agreed for the purchase of the aforesaid truck
and on 17.8.2010, paid earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- and
agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- on or before 28.08.2010 with further
undertaking that balance amount shall be paid upon receipt of NOC.
Agreement to sell & purchase and receipt of payment was executed by the
accused named in the FIR with the complainant on 17.8.2010 in the
presence of marginal witnesses. Accused named hereinabove handed over
the said vehicle to the complainant on 10.8.2010. However, on 20.09.2010,
persons, namely Munish Kumar and Shiv Kumar, came to the complainant
at his house at Santokhgarh and asked him to hand over the truck bearing
No.HP-12A-6369 by extending threats to do away with his life and causing
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
3
hurt. Above named persons further disclosed to the complainant that
.
persons, namely Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, are not the true owners of
the truck, rather they had prepared false sale, purchase, and receipt
documents for purpose of cheating, and thereafter Munish Kumar and Shiv
Kumar forcibly took possession of the truck from the complainant.
of
Complainant sent a legal notice on 16.08.2011 to Pradeep Kumar and
Chirag Pal for return of Rs.2,00,000/-, but they refused to receive the
notice. In the afore background, complainant, though at first instance,
rt
approached Police to lodge FIR, but since nothing was done by the Police,
he filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the competent
Court of law for registration of FIR. Competent Court of Law, taking note of
averments contained in the application, directed SHO, Police Station,
Haroli, Tehsil & District Una, to lodge FIR.
3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already
presented challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be
taken to its logical end, accused have approached this Court in the instant
proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending
in the competent Court of law
4. Precisely, case of the accused, as has been highlighted in the
petition and further canvassed by Sh. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
4
Counsel, duly assisted by Sh. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, representing the
.
accused, is that no case much less case under Sections 379, 420, 403 and
34 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused, who at no point
of time sold the vehicle in question to the complainant. Mr. Sharma,
learned Senior Counsel, while making this Court peruse challan filed under
of
Section 173 of Cr.P.C, submitted that at first instance, accused had sold
the truck in question to person, namely Satnam Singh, for total
consideration of Rs.7,51,000, but since aforesaid person was unable to pay
rt
the entire amount, accused, as per terms of agreement, took custody of
truck back. However, subsequently, Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal,
claiming themselves to be the owners of the vehicle, fraudulently proceeded
to sell the same to the complainant. He submitted that since accused were
lawful owners of the truck in question till the time they had not sold the
same to person, namely Balwant Singh, there was no authority, if any,
vested with Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal to sell the truck to the
complainant, who subsequently himself handed over the custody of truck
to the accused after his having come to know that accused are the original
owners of the truck. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently
argued that since accused never induced the complainant to buy the truck
in question, and they did not receive any amount from him, coupled with
the fact that accused remained lawful owners of the vehicle till the time it
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
5
was further sold to Balwant Singh, there was no occasion, if any, for the
.
Police to lodge FIR against them under Sections 379, 420, 403, and 34
Indian Penal Code. He submitted that since, for the aforesaid reasons, case
of the prosecution against the accused is bound to fail, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the FIR sought to be quashed alive, rather that
of
would unnecessarily put the accused to the ordeal of protracted trial, which
is otherwise bound to fail. Lastly, Mr. Sharma further submitted that
complainant, after his having lodged FIR, also filed civil suit in the Civil
rt
Court, claiming himself to be owner of the vehicle in question, but the same
was dismissed.
5. To the contrary, Sh. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate
General, representing the respondent-State and Sh. N.K. Thakur, learned
Senior counsel duly assisted by Sh. Karan Singh, Advocate, supported the
impugned action of lodging of FIR against the accused. They further argued
that once it is not in dispute that Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal had
purchased the vehicle in question from Satnam Singh, to whom accused
had sold the vehicle at first instance, coupled with the fact that possession
of the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant, there was no
occasion, if any, for the accused to take forcible custody of truck. They
submitted that it has come in the investigation that complainant had paid
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
6
Rs.2,00,000 to Pradeep Kumar through Chirag Pal, but as of today, neither
.
he has been given possession of the vehicle, nor has been returned money
which he had paid for purchase of truck. They submitted that if the entire
investigation conducted by the investigation agency is perused in its
entirety, it clearly reveals that accused are the kingpins because they had
of
been fraudulently selling one truck to many parties. Mr. Thakur, learned
Senior Advocate, further argued that since multiple transactions had taken
place after alleged sale of the truck in question by the accused to Satnam
rt
Singh, coupled with the fact that money has exchanged inter se parties,
this Court may not exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash
the FIR, rather to bring true facts to the fore, trial is imminent. He further
submitted that since truck was in possession of the complainant after his
having purchased the same from Pradeep Kumar, and complainant had
paid considerable amount in consideration, accused could not have taken
possession of same without resorting to the rule of law. However, in the
instant case, by extending threats to do away with the life of the
complainant, accused removed the truck, which at relevant time was
parked in the house of the complainant, which amounts to theft, and as
such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below,
while registering the case against the accused under Section 379 of Indian
Penal Code. He submitted that prior to transaction, if any, inter se Pradeep
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
7
Kumar and the complainant, accused had entered into two-three
.
transactions for sale and purchase of one truck, which clearly makes out a
case under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case.
of
7. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the
submissions and counter-submissions having been made by the learned
rt
counsel for the parties vis-Ã -vis prayer made in the instant petition, this
Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of
this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under
Section 482 of Cr.PC (now 528 of BNSS).
8. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699,
held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is
entitled to quash the proceedings, 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.
9. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court,
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
8
while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to
.
quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain
principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power.
After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power
under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex
of
Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP
(CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and
Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent
rt
powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not be permitted to degenerate
into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
10. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where
a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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/her due to private
and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482
Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and
Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
9
Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR
.
stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after
investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be
rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. The
relevant paras of the judgment are as under:
of
16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked
by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that
this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of
rt
Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:-
“482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers
of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice.”
17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the
exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of
court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled
principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending
with the trial court ( G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and
Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 (para 7), Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para 20). Indeed, it would be a
travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be
interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the
allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it
could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
10
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after
.
investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of
process of power of any court.”
12. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was explained by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
of
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
rt
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 thisCourt has summarised some of the principles under which
FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following
words:
“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 ofdecisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 ofthe Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustrationwherein 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 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.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
11
(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
of
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
rt
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.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is 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)
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
12
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.
of
As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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
rt
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 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 theends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor
limited by any other statutory provision. However, given thebroad 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 Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of
process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of
justice.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
13
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 theTrial 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) noof
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).”
rt
13. Aforesaid law, clearly stipulates that court can exercise power
under Section of 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash criminal
proceedings, in cases, 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.
14. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine
and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-Ã -vis factual
matrix of the case.
15. Admittedly, in the case at hand, accused namely Munish
Kumar and Shiv Kumar, never sold vehicle bearing No. HP-12A-6369, to
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
14
the complainant, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed came to be
.
instituted, rather, persons, namely Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, sold the
vehicle detailed hereinabove to the complainant without there being any
valid NOC in their favour. It has come in the investigation that at first
instance, accused had sold the truck in question to person, namely Satnam
of
Singh, for total sale consideration of Rs.7,51,000, but since above named
Satnam Singh was unable to pay the entire amount of consideration,
accused took the possession of the vehicle in terms of terms and conditions
rt
contained in the agreement to sell. It also emerges from the investigation
that before accused could take possession of the vehicle detailed
hereinabove, person, namely Satnam Singh, had already sold truck in
question to person, namely Pradeep Kumar. Allegedly Pradeep Kumar gave
one Scorpio worth Rs.4,65,000/- to Satnam Singh, Rs.80,000/- in cash
and two blank cheques, which were to be encashed after handing over the
NOC. Interestingly, before issuance of NOC, if any, by Satnam Singh,
Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal further sold the vehicle to the complainant
for sum of Rs.6,40,000/-, who in advance paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and two
cheques, which were to be encashed after issuance of NOC. Accused, who
are the real owners of the vehicle in question, allegedly, after having come
to know about factum of sale of truck in question to the complainant, went
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
15
to the house of the complainant and took forcible possession of the vehicle
.
in question claiming that they are the real owners of the vehicle.
16. Though it came to be vehemently argued by Sh. N.K. Thakur,
learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant, that accused took
forcible possession of the vehicle by extending threats to the complainant to
of
do away with his life, but if the FIR, which came to be lodged at the behest
of the complainant, is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggests that
rt
complainant, after his having come to know that accused are original
owners of the vehicle, himself delivered the possession of the vehicle to the
accused. Interestingly, in the case at hand, police, after having conducted
investigation, proceeded to lodge FIR against the accused under Sections
379, 420, 403 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, whereas persons, namely
Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, who had fraudulently sold the vehicle to
the complainant and had taken some money in advance, were not made
accused. It is apparent from the record that though accused had sold truck
in question to person, namely Satnam Singh, but it is also a matter of
record that on account of non-payment of balance amount, no NOC was
issued by the accused, as a result thereof, above named Satnam Singh
could not have further sell the truck to any third party. However, in the
case at hand, Satnam Singh, without there being NOC issued by the
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
16
original owners, i.e., accused, fraudulently proceeded to sell the truck in
.
question to Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, who also, without there being
any NOC issued by Satnam Singh, proceeded to sell the vehicle to the
complainant, who admittedly paid Rs. 2,00,000 in cash. Once it is not in
dispute, rather it is quite apparent from the record that accused herein
of
remained lawful owners of the truck in question till the time they
themselves sold the vehicle in question to person, namely Balwant Singh,
who subsequently got it registered in his name in the State of Punjab, there
rt
was no occasion, if any, for the police to register case against the accused
under Sections 379, 420, 403, and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Since accused
were lawful owners and at no point of time, had sold vehicle in question to
person, namely Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, who further sold the
vehicle to complainant, no offence can be said to have been committed by
them while taking possession of the vehicle from the complainant. Since
accused were lawful owners of the vehicle at the time of taking possession
from the complainant, no case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code
could have been registered against them.
17. Similarly, this Court finds that in no circumstance, Section 420
of Indian Penal Code could have been invoked against the accused for the
reason that at no point of time, they ever came in the contact of the
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
17
complainant before their having apprised him factum of their being owners
.
of the vehicle in question. They came in contact of the complainant for the
first time, when they took possession of the vehicle, claiming to be lawful
owners of the truck in question. It is not the case of the prosecution that
accused dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver some money for the
of
sale of truck, which they had already sold to some other person. There is
nothing on record to suggest that from day one, accused had any dishonest
intention to cheat the complainant. Agreement to sell, if any, qua the
rt
vehicle in question was executed inter se accused and person, namely
Satnam Singh, who admittedly failed to pay the entire balance amount, as
a result thereof, possession of the vehicle was taken over by the accused
from Satnam Singh. It is only Satnam Singh who, without there being valid
NOC issued in his favour, fraudulently proceeded to sell the truck to
Pradeep Kumar, who also, without there being NOC, if any, issued by the
original owner, further sold the vehicle to the complainant. Though
complainant had lodged FIR against persons, namely Pradeep Kumar and
Chirag Pal, for their having cheated him, but interestingly, police, after
having conducted investigation, arrayed present petitioners as accused and
discharged Pradeep Kumar and Chirag Pal, against whom complainant can
be said to have grouse.
::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
18
18. Having scanned the entire evidence, this Court has no
.
hesitation to conclude that, no case much less case under the aforesaid
provisions of law can be said to have been made out against the accused.
Since in view of detailed discussion made herein above, case of the
prosecution is likely to fail in any eventuality, this Court finds the present
of
matter to be a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to
quash FIR as well as consequent proceedings. If prayer made in the instant
rt
petition is not accepted, accused would be unnecessarily subjected to
ordeal of the protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to culminate in
acquittal so far accused are concerned.
19. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), present petition is allowed.
FIR No.245 dated 23.09.2011, registered under Sections 379, 420, 403 and
34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Haroli, Tehsil & District Una,
Himachal Pradesh along with consequent proceedings is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed
against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along
with all pending applications.
July 31, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Sunil) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2026 20:29:31 :::CIS
