Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 28.04.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 9 May, 2025

2025:HHC:13312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 404 of 2021

Reserved on: 28.04.2025

Date of Decision: 9th May, 2025.

Prakash                                            ...Petitioner

                          Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Another            ...Respondents


Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?    No.

For the Petitioner             :   Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
                                   Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh
                                   Bhushan, Advocate

For the Respondent/State           :Mr.     Jitender    Sharma,
                                   Additional Advocate General.
                                   Mr. Atul G. God, Advocate, for
                                   respondent No.2


Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of F.I.R. No. 19 of 2020, dated 25.03.2020, registered at

Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmour, H.P., for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506

of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of

2025:HHC:13312

Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the

consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR (the parties

shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were

arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

petition are that the victim (name being withheld to protect her

identity) made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police,

Shimla, asserting that the accused, Prakash, used to tease her

and talk indecently with her. He used to follow her whenever

she went to graze the goats. She was present in the Ghasni on

02.01.2020 at 3-4 p.m. when the accused came to the Ghasni and

raped her. She shouted for help, but there was no one to help

her. The accused threatened to kill her in case she revealed the

incident to any person. She got frightened and could not reveal

the incident to any person. She stopped menstruating, and her

parents became suspicious. She revealed the incident to her

parents. The police sent the FIR to Police Station Renukaji,

where the incident had taken place. An FIR No.19 of 2020 was

registered at the Police Station Renukaji. The police conducted

the investigation and filed a charge sheet.

2025:HHC:13312

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R. and

filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has filed the present

petition for quashing of the F.I.R. and consequential

proceedings arising out of it. It has been asserted that the

victim was taken to the hospital for her medical check-up. No

pregnancy was detected. The victim's father went to the Police

Station Renukaji on 03.04.2020 and stated that the victim had

aborted the fetus. She was taken to the hospital and was

medically examined. The Medical Officer opined that the victim

never got pregnant and no abortion had taken place. This shows

that the petitioner was falsely implicated. There is no possibility

of succeeding in the case. Hence, it was prayed that the present

petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by filing a reply making a

preliminary submission regarding the lack of cause of action.

The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was

asserted that the matter was transferred to Police Station

Renukaji for investigation. The police conducted the

investigation and found sufficient reasons to file a charge sheet

2025:HHC:13312

before the learned Trial Court. It was admitted that the

pregnancy test was found negative in Shimla and the

Government Hospital, Dadahu. However, this does not mean

that the victim was not sexually abused. The Medical Officer

issued a report stating that the possibility of sexual assault

could not be ruled out. The matter is pending before the learned

Trial Court, where the accused will have an adequate

opportunity to defend himself. Hence, it was prayed that the

present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior

Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, and Mr. Atul G.

God, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was

falsely implicated. The victim made a complaint regarding her

pregnancy at Shimla, which was found to be false after medical

examination. Her father stated that she had aborted a fetus, and

this fact was also found to be incorrect after medical

2025:HHC:13312

examination. This shows that the FIR was lodged with an

ulterior motive. The part of the allegations contained in the FIR

is false, and the rest of the contents of the FIR cannot be true.

The continuation of the proceedings in the present case will be

meaningless. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be

allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out

of it be quashed. He relied upon Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of

U.P. & Ors. 2023 INSC 684 and Dinesh Sharma v. State

CRL.M.C.1002/2021, decided on 24.03.2021 in support of his

submission.

7. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

General for respondent No.1/State, submitted that the

allegations in the complaint show the commission of a

cognizable offence. The medical report shows that the

possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The victim had

stopped menstruating, and her suspicion that she had become

pregnant cannot be said to be without any basis. The victim's

testimony cannot be rejected because her father had made some

incorrect statements. In any case, the truthfulness or otherwise

of the allegations is not to be seen while exercising jurisdiction

2025:HHC:13312

under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, he prayed that the

present petition be dismissed.

8. Mr. Atul G. God, learned counsel for respondent No.2,

adopted the submissions of Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned

Additional Advocate General.

9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at bar and have gone through the records carefully.

10. 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 summarized 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

2025:HHC:13312

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 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 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

2025:HHC:13312

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.

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."

11. 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,

2025:HHC:13312

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 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)

12. It was held in Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand,

(2024) 10 SCC 527: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2820 that the Court has to

take the allegations in the FIR as correct while deciding the

question of quashing the FIR at the threshold. It was observed at

page 531:

"15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the

2025:HHC:13312

case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage."

13. The present petition is to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

14. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint made

to the police that the accused went to Ghasni on 02.01.2020 at

3-4 p.m., where the victim was grazing her goats. He caught

hold of the victim and raped her. He also threatened her. These

allegations prima facie constitute the commission of a

cognizable offence.

15. Heavy reliance was placed upon the status reports in

which it was stated by the police that Balbir Singh told the

Police on 03.04.2020 that the victim had aborted the fetus and

she had thrown it away. This was found to be incorrect after the

medical report. It was submitted that since the statement made

by Balbir Singh is incorrect, therefore, the possibility of the

remaining case being false cannot be ruled out. This submission

2025:HHC:13312

is only stated to be rejected. The record of the learned Trial

Court was requisitioned. The statement of the victim's father,

dated 03.04.2020, reads that the victim told her mother that

something came out of her stomach when she had gone to

defecate. The victim was to be taken to the hospital, and the

doctor revealed that the victim was not pregnant. Therefore, the

victim's father had never stated that the victim had aborted the

fetus. He had only stated that something came out of the

stomach which cannot be equated to the fetus. Hence, the

interpretation of this statement in the status report is not

correct.

16. The victim also stated that something came out of

her stomach, which she threw towards the bushes. She revealed

this fact to her paternal aunt. Hence, the victim also did not

state that she had aborted the fetus.

17. In any case, the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in

omnibus' does not apply to India1. Hence, a statement cannot be

rejected because a part of the statement was found to be false.

18. It was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P.,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court exercising inherent

K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 958

2025:HHC:13312

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 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)

2025:HHC:13312

"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."

19. It was submitted that the statement of the victim is

not acceptable because she had not made any allegation of rape

in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. This

submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of

Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the

Court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC,

cannot conduct a mini-trial. It was observed at page 397:

"17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)

6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under

2025:HHC:13312

Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. ...

7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not'."

20. Hence, it is not permissible for the Court to compare

the statement of the victim under Section 164 of CrPC to

determine whether the allegations in the FIR are correct or not.

21. A heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of

U.P. & Ors. 2023 INSC 684 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that when the FIR has been filed for wreaking vengeance,

the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little

more closely. If this principle is applied to the present case and

the FIR is read very carefully and closely, it can only lead to one

inference that accused had raped the victim in her Ghasni. This

reading is also supported by the report of the Medical Officer,