Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No.594 of 2025
Date of Decision: 17.3.2026
.
_____________________________________________________________________
Pradeep Kumar Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.
rt Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment
dated 16.9.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, District Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh, in CIS Reg. No. 06 of 2019 (Regd. No.4 of 2019), titled
as State v. Harbhaj Sharma and Ors., whereby prayer made by the
petitioner (accused No.2-Pradeep Kumar Thakur) to discharge him for his
having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 8 & 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section
13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be rejected.
2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well
as material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR No.1 of
2016 dated 29.3.2016, came to be registered against the petitioner as well
::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
2
as other co-accused by SV & ACB, Police Station Kullu, Himachal Pradesh,
for their having allegedly forged the documents of registration of vehicles as
.
well as issuance of driving licenses without there being any authority.
3. After completion of investigation, SHO SV&ACB, Kullu,
presented charge sheet against the accused persons namely Harbhaj
Sharma, Pradeep Kumar and Avinash Chander, Notary Public, for the
of
commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC
and Sections 8 & 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. rt
4. Learned trial Court after having perused final report submitted
under Section 173 CrPC, listed the matter for framing of charge on
16.9.2025, on which date, prayer came to be made by the petitioner as well
as other co-accused for their discharge, however learned trial Court rejected
their prayer for discharge, whereas 3rd accused Avinash Chander came to
be discharged on account of protection granted to Notary Public under
Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952. In the afore background, petitioner
has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to
set aside aforesaid order and discharge him.
5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted
in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel
for the petitioner is that petitioner herein, who was only deputed for two
::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
3
days for registration of licenses, has been falsely implicated, whereas RLA
Kullu, who was otherwise competent authority to issue license has been not
.
made accused. Mr. Palsra vehemently argued that learned trial Court has
fallen in grave error by not considering the instructions contained in
letter/instructions dated 25.8.2005 in its letter and spirit. He submitted
that in terms afore instructions, no Driving License can be issued without
of
conducting the proficiency test. He further submitted that as per State
Motor Vehicle Rules, competent authority to conduct tests is a board of
inspection consisting of RLAs and the MVIs.
rt He submitted that since
petitioner was not alone to conduct the test, rather same was conducted in
presence of RLA and ultimately driving licenses were issued under the
signature of RLA, there was no occasion, if any, to make the petitioner
accused, rather RLA ought to have been arraigned as an accused.
6. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional
Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently
argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive
of the fact that petitioner in connivance with co-accused No.1-Harbhaj
Sharma, prepared, forged and fabricated the documents in order to use the
same as genuine to get the vehicles registered and transferred with an
ulterior motive to claim commission from the beneficiaries concerned. He
further submitted that petitioner herein, who was MVI, was found to have
::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
4
forged the documents/registration of vehicles and transferred ownership of
Jeep No. HP 49A 0959 by forging signatures of Nirat Singh and Hem Singh.
.
He further submitted that accused No.1 was also found to have got issued
Driving License of one Smt. Kalyani Sharma, who did not know how to
drive, but since petitioner, who was responsible for conducting Proficiency
Driving Test, gave a false report, thereby passing above named person, RLA,
of
Kullu, proceeded to issue license. He further submitted that in the case at
hand, RLA concerned specifically denied of his having conducted
Proficiency Driving Test. Lastly, Mr. Panwar, submitted that even if Gian
rt
Chand and RLA/SDM are not made accused in the case that is not
sufficient to discharge the petitioner, against whom there is overwhelming
evidence of forgery.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record, this court finds that FIR detailed herein above,
was lodged on the pretext that One Maruti Car without number plate
having one person inside it, was taken to Police Station on 29.3.2016 on
the basis of secret information received by the police. Accused No.1
Harbhaj Sharma was found sitting in the said car and from car, many files
were recovered during checking of the said vehicle. After verification of
documents, it was found that accused No.2 Pradeep Kumar (petitioner
herein), who had retired as Motor Vehicle Inspector connived with accused
::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
5
No. 1 Harbhaj Sharma, and forged the documents of registration of vehicles
and transferred the ownership of Jeep bearing registration No. HP 49A
.
0959 by forging signature of Nirat Singh and Hem Singh.
8. Accused No.1 Harbhaj was found to have got the ownership of
Van bearing registration No. HP 01K 0165 transferred from Balvir Singh in
the name of Hem Raj by preparing fake tax payment certificates/documents
of
from Excise Department and on the basis of afore document, transferred
the ownership of the afore vehicle by using the same as original. Similarly,
petitioner herein being a public servant with an intention of providing
rt
undue advantage by misusing the position got the Driving License issued
from RLA Kullu. Though Driving License on the recommendation of the
committee headed by the SDM, was issued but person concerned did not
pass any driving test. Though committee is comprised of RLA and MVI but
RLA in the case at hand has specifically denied having conducted
inspection as well as his presence on the given date.
9. In nutshell grouse of the petitioner is that since person
namely Gian Chand and RLA/SDM who was otherwise responsible for
issuance of Driving License have been not made accused, there was no
occasion, if any, to arraign petitioner as an accused, who otherwise was
given charge of MVI only for two days. Since it is not in dispute that
accused No.2 (petitioner herein) was posted as MVI and in afore capacity,
::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
6
he was otherwise under obligation to oversee the proficiency driving test of
applicants conducted for issuance of Driving License coupled with the fact
.
that RLA/SDM otherwise sought to be made accused has specifically
denied factum of his having conducted proficiency test as well as his
presence during proficiency test, no illegality can be said to have been
committed by the learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer made by the
of
accused No.2 for discharge.
10. Careful perusal of police challan clearly reveals that accused NO.1
Harbhaj Sharma and accused No.2 Pradeep Kumar, were found in
rt
possession of some record of registration and transfer of the vehicle with
RLA concerned and when these documents were verified, it transpired that
accused No.1 signed on behalf of the other persons and also identified
therein the alleged execution of various documents. Accused No.2 i.e.
petitioner herein, who at the relevant time, was working as MVI registered
and transferred the vehicle with RLA without following due process of law.
11. Though accused No.3 Avinash Chander being public notary
also attested some documents/affidavits and he was also made accused
but subsequently taking note of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, wherein
protection has been granted to Notary Public, he was discharged vide order
impugned in the instant proceedings. Sufficient evidence has been
adduced on record against accused No.1 Harbhaj Sharma and present
::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
7
petitioner and as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr.
Palsra, that no case much less under aforesaid provisions of law is made
.
out against the petitioner.
12. Non-arraignment of Gian Chand and RLA/SDM as an accused
may not be sufficient to discharge the petitioner. Needless to say, trial
court while exercising power under Section 319 of CrPC (now Section 358
of
of BNSS), can always proceed to make aforesaid person as an accused in
case evidence of their having committed forgery in connivance with the
petitioner as well as other co-accused Harbhaj comes to the fore, but
rt
certainly their non-impleadment as an accused, at this stage, may not be a
ground for the petitioner as well as other co-accused to seek discharge.
13. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld.
Accordingly, preset petition fails and dismissed along with pending
applications.
March 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:35:08 :::CIS
