Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ashutosh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 153 of 2025
Decided On : 01-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property dispute from sarfaesi sale and court possession order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents allege forcible trespass on leased property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties contend civil dispute versus criminal offences. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. fir quashable without prima facie offence or process abuse. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. section 506 requires threat intent to alarm or compel. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. trespass needs intent to annoy or offend possessor. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. prior orders confirm civil possession dispute nature. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 8. civil disputes cannot convert to criminal proceedings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. fir quashed lacking criminal offence ingredients. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 102/2024, dated 30.6.2024, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmour, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.5/informant Keshav Sharma made a complaint to the police that he was posted as a Manager in Himalayan International Food Company, Shubhkhera, Paonta Sahib. Manmohan Malik, the owner of the factory, owns the house and land in Khasra No.206/155/63, Mauja Ambwala Singpura. A civil suit was pending before the High Court. The High Court directed Manmohan Malik to vacate five rooms and the kitchen in CWP No. 7719/2021 and CMP No. 8402 of 2024. Manmohan Malik handed over the possession of 05 rooms and the kitchen to Ashutosh Gupta (the present petitioner), designated partner of Manverse Pharma. The Court directed Manmohan Malik to vacate the building on or before 23.6.2024. He complied with the orders of the Court and removed his articles. He deputed Deep Chand and Sant Kumar to look after the property. Ashutosh Gupta and Man Singh threatened the workers on 30.6.2024 at 5.30 PM and threw them out of the premises in possession of Manmohan Malik. The locks were put on the main gate and the boundary wall to oust Manmohan Malik. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the investigation, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that Manmohan Malik was Director of APJ Laboratories, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., which had availed a loan from Punjab National Bank (PNB). The loan was subsequently transferred to HP State Cooperative Bank. The company failed to repay the loan, and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated. The bank took over the possession of the company’s property comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 68/89, Khasra No.205/155/63, 166/84, 164/84, 149/86, 167/151, Kita-6, measuring 27-17 bigha, situated in Mauza Ambwala Singhapura, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. Manmohan Malik filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as CWP No. 7719 of 2021, titled M/s APJ Laboratories Vs. HP State Cooperative Bank. The Court ordered the auction of the property, but no bidder participated. The Court permitted the Cooperative Bank to sell the property by private negotiation. The petitioner filed an application before this Court, which was registered as CMP No. 3179 of 2024. The petitioner’s company purchased the property from HP State Cooperative Bank in a private negotiation for Rs.12.52 crores. The Court issued a direction to Manmohan Malik to hand over the possession of the property to the petitioner. Manmohan Malik hindered the delivery of the possession and ultimately delivered the possession pursuant to the order passed by the Court. The Court granted time to Manmohan Malik to remove his belongings from the portion of the house which was purchased by the petitioner. Manmohan Malik removed the fixtures from the building, and the matter was reported to the police. When Manmohan Malik came to know about this fact,
FIR quashed as allegations fail prima facie to constitute Sections 451,447,506 IPC offences in civil property possession dispute lacking trespass intent and intimidation alarm, preventing abuse of pr....
The High Court reaffirmed the stringent standard for quashing FIRs, emphasizing that allegations must disclose a cognizable offence and be supported by prima facie evidence.
The main legal point established is that a bona fide claim of right or title can protect a person from being convicted of criminal trespass, even if the claim is ill-founded in law.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, emphasizing that the FIR lacked allegations constituting a criminal offence and should be quashed.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
The court quashed criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation, highlighting that allegations lacked required intent and could be deemed malicious, thereby abusing the legal process.
A criminal complaint based on essentially civil disputes, particularly where no prima facie case exists, can be quashed to prevent abuse of legal processes.
Quashing petition under SC/ST Act dismissed as FIR allegations of caste abuse at public place prima facie disclose offences; courts accept averments at face value without evidence appreciation, civil....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
