Thakar Singh Bharmouri vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 17 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Thakar Singh Bharmouri vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 17 March, 2026

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.623 of 2025
Date of Decision: 17.03.2026

.

_______________________________________________________

Thakar Singh Bharmouri
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.

…..Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:

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

For the petitioner:

rt Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Ms. Shikha Rajta, Ms.
Urvashi Rajta and Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to

3-State.

Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.

_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf

of the petitioner for setting aside and quashing of FIR No.110 of 2021,

dated 30.10.2021, under Section 125 of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951 and Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, registered at

Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., as well as

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

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
2

consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Chamba, Himachal

.

Pradesh.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, which may be relevant for

proper adjudication of the case at hand, are that respondent No.4

(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who is an office bearer

of
of Bharatiya Janta Party, lodged a complaint through email with the

Chief Electoral Officer, Shimla on 03.10.2021, alleging therein that
rt
petitioner, during an election speech, used abusive language against

the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, thereby violating the Model Code

of Conduct and provisions of the Representation of the People Act,

1951 and Indian Penal Code. Complaint received by Chief Electoral

Officer was further forwarded to the Police Station Bharmour, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which taking cognizance of the contents

of complaint proceeded to lodge FIR sought to be quashed.

3. Though challan stands filed in the competent court of law,

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

approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing and

setting aside of FIR as well as consequent proceedings.

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

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. P.P.

Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that no case

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
3

much less case under Section 125 of the Representation of the

People Act and Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is made out against

.

the petitioner. Mr. Chauhan, states that bare perusal of FIR sought to

be quashed as well as Final Report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C

nowhere discloses specific description, if any, of abusive language, if

any, hurled by the petitioner, rather complainant simply stated that

of
during election rally, petitioner, who is a senior Congress leader,

made absurd and uncalled for remarks against Hon’ble Prime Minster
rt
of India, which is otherwise not sufficient to constitute offence, if any,

under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act and

Section 504 of Indian Penal Code.

5. To the contrary, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy

Advocate General for the respondent-State and Mr. Vinod Chauhan,

learned counsel for the complainant, while praying for dismissal of the

petition filed at the behest of the petitioner, vehemently argued that no

illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-State

by lodging FIR. They stated that petitioner not only hurled abuses but

also made absurd and objectionable remarks against the Hon’ble

Prime Minister of India. They stated that while using absurd language

against Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner attempted to

promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the

citizens of India, as such, rightly came to be booked under Section

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
4

125 of the Representation of the People Act. They further stated that

petitioner, with a view to disrupt elections and vitiate political

.

atmosphere, intentionally insulted the Hon’ble Prime Minster of India

and provoked workers of Bharatiya Janta Party, being fully aware that

such actions were likely to cause public disorder, as such, he rightly

came to be booked under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. They

of
stated that since charge is yet to be framed, arguments sought to be

advanced in the instant proceedings can always be raised by the
rt
petitioner at the time of framing of charge, but way of filing present

petition, an attempt has been made by the petitioner to prevent

learned Court below from taking cognizance of the matter, which is

otherwise not permissible under law.

6. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone

through the record carefully.

7. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of

the submissions and counter-submissions having been made by the

learned counsel for the parties vis-à-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)

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
5

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

of
others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the

Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborately discussing the scope and
rt
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

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 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State

(NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
6

titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC

330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482

.

Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of

issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of

framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution,

care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex

of
Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.PC, Court exercising such power must be fully
rt
satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would

lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound,

reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record

itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the

accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above,

the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the

accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to

dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In

such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would

persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to

quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of

process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid

judgment titled as Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9

SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
7

“22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal
proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by

this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330,

paras 29-30)

29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,

of
if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against
an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of
committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These
rt
are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial.
The same parameters would naturally be available for later

stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to
hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences,

inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s
case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead

evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with
caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court
has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the

accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that
his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and
indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule
out and displace the assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused; and the material produced is
such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the
allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out,
reject and discard the accusations levelled by the

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
8

prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording
any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence
should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be

.

justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable

quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be
such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and

condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such
a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would
persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the

of
Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would
prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of
justice.

rt

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to

determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an
accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the

material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the

accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material
is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions

contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such,
that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?

30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
9

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it
to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of
power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the

.

accused, would save precious court time, which would

otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear
that the same would not conclude in the conviction of

the accused.”

11. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid

of
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that

where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
rt
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.

12. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand

Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

Department of Home and 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:

16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision
invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
10

Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order
under Section 482 of 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 of justice.”

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

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
rt
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 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.”

13. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod

Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9

SCC 608, has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under

Section 482 Cr.PC, the relevant para whereof reads as under:-

“7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent
powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
11

Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be
exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the CrPC; (ii) to
prevent the abuse of the process of the court; and (iii) to

.

otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court

under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a
significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to

exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its
extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding
as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case

of
through investigation and evidence. These principles have been
consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder
Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal5, this Court observed.

rt
“23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every

High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution

and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the
advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to
injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court
would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.”

8. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High
Courts, any strict test as to when the court’s extraordinary
powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court’s hands in the

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
12

face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan
Lal6 conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court
may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of

.

illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is

not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear
relevance to the present case. The court in Bhajan Lal noted

that quashing may be appropriate where, (2007) 12 SCC 1 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

“102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information

of
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
rt
accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2).
……….

(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 private and personal

grudge.”

In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the
facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing
evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the
face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence.
As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
13

Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC3100 (“Dhruvaram Sonar”)
:

“13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous
analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by

.

the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence

is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If
the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute
the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is

open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of
its inherent powers.”

14. Aforesaid law, clearly stipulates that court can exercise

of
power under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash

criminal proceedings, in cases, where the allegations made in the first
rt
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.

15. 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-à-

vis factual matrix of the case.

16. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that no case much

less under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act and

504 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.

17. To ascertain the correctness of aforesaid plea set up at

the behest of the petitioner, this Court, at first instance, deems it fit to

take note of Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act and

Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, which read as under:-

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
14

“125. Promoting enmity between classes in connection
with election.–

Any person who in connection with an election under this

.

Act promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion,

race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or
hatred, between different classes of the citizens of India shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

of
Section 504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.

Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation
to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such
rt
provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to
commit any other offence, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

18. Careful perusal of Section 125 of the Representation of

the People Act clearly reveals that any person person, who in

connection with an election under aforesaid Act, promotes or attempts

to promote feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of

the citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community

or language, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which

may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

19. Having carefully perused contents of FIR as well as Final

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, this Court is persuaded to agree with

Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that no case

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
15

much less under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act

is made out against the petitioner. As per complainant, petitioner,

.

during election rally, not only used abusive language against the

Hon’ble Prime Minister, but also hurled abuses, however, no specific

description, if any, with regard to absurd remarks allegedly used by

the petitioner has been given in the final report under Section 173

of
Cr.P.C, rather Investigating Agency in its report submitted under

Section 173 Cr.P.C has verbatim reproduced the contents of FIR.

20.
rt
To invoke Section 125 of the Representation of the

People Act, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that person

sought to be charged with aforesaid provision of law attempted to

promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of

citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or

language. Moreover, in the instant case, there is no allegation that

while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon’ble Prime

Minster of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred

between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of

religion, race, caste, community or language, rather he, during election

rally, made certain utterances against the Hon’ble Prime Minister of

India, which though can be said to be totally uncalled for, but may not

be sufficient to constitute offence under Section 125 of the

Representation of the People Act. No material worth credence has

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
16

been adduced on record suggestive of the fact that pursuant to use of

absurd remarks and hurling of abuses by the petitioner, any feelings of

.

enmity or hatred arose between different classes of citizens of India

that too on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or

language.

21. Similarly, this Court finds that no case under Section 504

of
of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. As per

aforesaid provision of law, whoever intentionally insults, and thereby
rt
gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely

that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to

commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both. Interestingly, the person, who was allegedly

intentionally insulted by the petitioner, thereby being provoked to

breach the public peace or commit any other offence, never came

forward to lodge a complaint, rather complainant, being member of

Bharatiya Janta Party, lodged the complaint, contents whereof, if read,

are not specific, rather vague and evasive. Complainant simply stated

that petitioner, during election rally, made uncalled for remarks against

the Hon’ble Prime Minister and also hurled abuses, which action of the

petitioner may not be sufficient to constitute offence punishable under

Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. No material worth credence has

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
17

been adduced on record to suggest that petitioner intentionally

insulted the Hon’ble Prime Minister that too with a view to provoke

.

other persons to break public peace or commit any offence. In the

case at hand, petitioner, while election speech, made certain

comments against the Hon’ble Prime Minister, but there is no material

to demonstrate that pursuant to aforesaid uncalled for speech given by

of
the petitioner, there was any disruption of public peace.

22. Leaving everything aside, main ingredient to invoke
rt
Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is totally missing in the case at

hand. No material worth credence has been adduced on record to

suggest that petitioner intentionally, with a view to cause public

disruption, hurled abuses and made uncalled for remarks against the

Hon’ble Prime Minister.

23. This Court for the discussion made hereinabove in detail

finds the case at hand to be a fit case, where power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash FIR as well as consequent

proceedings, which is otherwise bound to fail for the reasons stated

hereinabove. Continuation of proceedings pursuant to FIR sought to

be quashed, would not only cause unnecessary harassment to the

petitioner, but would also put him to ordeal of protracted trial, which is

otherwise likely to culminate into his acquittal.

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS
18

24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made

hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, FIR No.110 of

.

2021, dated 30.10.2021, under Sections 125 of the Representation of

the People Act, 1951 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, registered at

Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. as well as

consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the

of
competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is

acquitted of the charges framed against him.

25.
rt
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
March 17, 2026

(sunil)

::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:30:36 :::CIS