Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 11.08.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 25 August, 2025
2025:HHC:28526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 464 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 11.08.2025
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025.
Narinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Coram
r to ...Respondents
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
quashing of FIR No. 39 of 2024, dated 10.11.2024, registered at
Women Police Station Baddi, for the commission of offences
punishable under Section 65 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (hereinafter referred as BNS) and Sections 4 & 6 of
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:28526
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter
referred to as POCSO).
.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police
that Narender Kumar (present petitioner) called her to his home
in July/ August 2024. He was alone in his house. He asked the
victim to maintain physical relations with him and promised to
give her clothes and pay her money. She maintained physical
relations with the petitioner; however, the petitioner neither
paid her anything nor provided her with any clothes as promised
by him. The petitioner came to her home during Diwali and
raped her in the cowshed. The victim became pregnant. The
police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The
victim delivered a baby. The samples were preserved and sent to
FSL. As per the report of analysis, the victim was the biological
mother of the newborn baby, but the petitioner was not his
biological father. The police filed the charge sheet before the
Court after completing the investigation.
3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR and
the filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has filed the
2025:HHC:28526
present petition for quashing of the FIR and the consequential
proceedings arising out of the FIR. It has been asserted that the
.
victim's mother filed an affidavit, stating that the petitioner was
named due to misunderstanding. The petitioner had not
committed any offence. The victim made a statement under
Section 180 of BNSS that the petitioner was named at the
instance of one boy named Yash. The petitioner was discharging
his duty on the date mentioned in the FIR. However,
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner
is causing grave inconvenience and injustice to him. Hence, the
present petition.
4. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
reproducing the contents of the FIR and the steps taken during
the investigation. It was asserted that, as per the record
maintained by the school and panchayat, the victim was born on
19.01.2009 and her age was found to be 15 years and 6 months on
the date of the incident. The date of conception was found to be
24th May 2024 as per the report of the ultrasound. The petitioner
was on leave between 24th May and 31st May 2024. The samples
were sent to the SFSL Junga, and as per the report of analysis,
the DNA profile obtained from the bed sheet, recovered at the
2025:HHC:28526
instance of the victim, matched completely with the DNA profile
of the petitioner. The victim delivered a child who died
.
immediately after the birth. The DNA profile taken from the
baby matched the DNA of the victim but did not match the DNA
of the petitioner. The police conducted further investigation.
The victim made a supplementary statement that Yashpal @
Yash had raped her. She made a similar statement before the
Court. The police arrested Yashpal @ Yash. The DNA sample of
the baby did not match the DNA profile of Yashpal. The victim
stated that Yashpal had threatened to make her photographs
viral, but no such photographs were found. The victim and her
mother did not name the person who had impregnated the
victim, hence the status report.
5. I have heard Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel, for the
petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondents No. 1 & 2 /State.
6. Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel, for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely
implicated at the instance of Yash. The DNA profile of the baby
did not match the DNA profile of the petitioner; hence, the
2025:HHC:28526
victim's version that the petitioner had raped her is not
supported by the report of analysis. The continuation of the
.
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed
and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the
same be quashed.
7. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondents No. 1 & 2 /State, submitted that the DNA
profile of the petitioner was found in the bed sheet recovered at
the instance of the victim, which corroborates her initial version
that the petitioner had raped her. Learned Trial Court had
framed the charges, and the matter is listed for recording the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner did not
assail the order framing the charges, and this Court should not
exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR. Therefore, he
prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
2025:HHC:28526
9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
.
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 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
this Court 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 of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein 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.
(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
2025:HHC:28526
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) 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 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
r the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable based on 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)
8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6)
would be of relevance to us in this case.
2025:HHC:28526
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.
As per clause (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 dated by the Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and 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 the ends of justice. These inherent powers are
neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory
provision. However, given the broad 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.
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
2025:HHC:28526
quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby
pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case
before the Trial 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) no 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)
11.
The present petition is to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. The allegations in the status report show that the
petitioner had called the victim to his home and raped her by
promising to pay her money and provide her clothes. He again
raped her in the cowshed. These allegations prima facie show the
commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC
and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.
13. It was submitted that the petitioner was not found to
be the biological father of the newly born baby, and this falsifies
the victim's version. This submission will not help the
petitioner. The Court exercising inherent jurisdiction has to take
the allegations in the FIR as correct. This position was laid down
2025:HHC:28526
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, wherein it was observed: -
.
"29. It is settled law that the power of quashing a
complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, and while exercising this power, the
Court must believe the averments and allegations in the
complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly
held that, save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the
Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and
inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a
routine manner according to its whims or caprice."
14. It was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court exercising inherent
jurisdiction to quash the FIR cannot go into the truthfulness or
otherwise of the allegations. It was observed: -
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage
of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint,
if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission
of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At
the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face
value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or
make out a case against the accused. We are of the
considered view that the present case would fall under
2025:HHC:28526
Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in
the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this
.
Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC
1060:
"14. First, we would like to deal with the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the
petition for quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do
not see any merit in this submission, keeping in
mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23].
In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this
Court while deciding the question of whether the
High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition
for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed
by the police during the pendency of the Section 482
petition, observed: (SCC p. 63, para 16)
"16. Thus, the general conspectus of the
various sections under which the appellant is
being charged and is to be prosecuted would
show that the same is not made out even prima
facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the
charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single
Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have
still examined whether the offences alleged to
have been committed by the appellant were
prima facie made out from the complainant's
FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not."
15. A perusal of the status report shows that the police
recovered the bed sheet at the victim's instance. This bed sheet
2025:HHC:28526
was sent for analysis to the laboratory. The report of the analysis
shows that human semen was detected on it, and the DNA
.
profile taken from the bed sheet matched the petitioner's DNA
profile. This report prima facie corroborates the victim's version
that the petitioner had raped her on the bed sheet identified by
her.
16. It was submitted that the petitioner was not found to
be the biological father of the newly born baby. This submission
proceeds on the basis that the rape would only be committed
when the petitioner is found to be the biological father of the
newly born baby, which is not correct. As per Section 375 of IPC,
the penetration to any extent constitutes rape, hence the
accused is not required to be the biological father of the baby.
The prosecution is only required to establish that the petitioner
had committed the sexual penetration upon the victim. The
version of the victim is prima facie corroborated by the report of
the analysis. Therefore, FIR cannot be quashed on the ground
that the petitioner was not found to be the biological father of
the newly born baby.
2025:HHC:28526
17. It was submitted that the victim made a statement
before the police and the learned Magistrate that she had named
.
the petitioner at the instance of Yashpal, which shows that the
allegations against the petitioner are false. The victim's mother
also executed an affidavit to this effect. This submission will not
help the petitioner. This Court is not to appreciate the evidence
while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The victim had
initially named the petitioner as her rapist, and this was duly
corroborated by the recovery of the bed sheet having the DNA
profile of the petitioner. The effect of any subsequent statement
made by her is to be seen by the learned Trial Court where the
matter is pending. Further, the victim's statement before the
Court, police and learned Magistrate that Yashpal had
threatened to make her video/ photo viral is not established by
the report of analysis, wherein no such photo/ video was found
in the mobile phone of Yashpal. Therefore, prima facie, the
victim's statement that she had named the petitioner at the
instance of Yashpal cannot be accepted and is required to be
appreciated along with other evidence on record.
18. It is undisputed that the learned Trial Court had
framed the charges, and the petitioner has not assailed the
2025:HHC:28526
orders of framing the charges. It was laid down in Minakshi Bala
v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181 that once
.
the Competent Court has framed the charges, the person
aggrieved may invoke the revisional jurisdiction and the High
Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., except in rare cases. It was observed on page 145:
-
"7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240
CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made
out -- as has been done in the instant case -- the person
arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to
contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section
173 CrPC and documents sent with it did not disclose any
ground to presume that he had committed any offence for
which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied
can quash the charges framed against him. To put it
differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC
the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be
justified in relying upon documents other than those referred
to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in
invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic
exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course.
We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases, the High
Court can look into only those documents which are
unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant
evidence." (Emphasis supplied)
2025:HHC:28526
19. In the present case, no exceptional circumstances
were shown to justify the quashing of the FIR.
.
20. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949
that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial
Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed:
"At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the
investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is
ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the
FIR do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the
absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged
offences, we are of the view that the appellants should
prefer a discharge application before the trial court under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We
say so because even according to the State, the
investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be
filed before the competent court. In such circumstances,
the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials
which the investigating officer might have collected,
forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge
application is filed, the trial court shall look into the
materials and take a call whether any discharge case is
made out or not."
21. No other point was urged.
22. In view of the above, the present petition fails and
the same is dismissed.
2025:HHC:28526
23. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
.
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
25th August 2025
(Anurag)
