SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Keshav Dutt Shreedhar – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and Others – Respondents
Cr. Rev. No. 345 of 2025 
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajnish Maniktala, Bhushree Jain
For the Respondents: H.S. Rawat, Mohinder Zharaick

Under CrPC 156(3) pre-cognizance, Magistrate assesses prima facie case solely from complaint; cannot rely on police report. Pre-BNSS applications proceed under CrPC savings clause (BNSS 531).

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 175(3), 442, 528, 531 - Application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed pre-BNSS commencement for FIR registration alleging financial irregularities by co-directors including unauthorized operations, illegal salary, fund diversion, concealed transactions per audit - Trial Court erred in calling and relying on police status report at pre-cognizance stage, treating as post-cognizance under BNSS 175(3) - Pending proceedings continue under CrPC per BNSS 531 savings clause - Magistrate to assess only prima facie case from complaint and documents at 156(3) stage, without police input akin to Section 202 CrPC. (Paras 10-21)

(B) Criminal Investigation - Pre vs Post-Cognizance - Power under 156(3) exercisable pre-cognizance to direct police investigation under 156(1); distinct from 202 inquiry post-cognizance - No switching back once cognizance taken. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
Complainant, shareholder-director, alleged co-directors' conspiracy via unauthorized hotel operations, personal use of property, unsanctioned salary, partnership using premises rent-free, fund siphoning, audit revealing nil turnover despite operations, inaccurate accounts - Prior police complaints inaction led to 156(3) application; trial court dismissed post status report finding no cognizable offence prima facie.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside for procedural error; matter remanded for fresh decision under 156(3) CrPC on prima facie basis from complaint.

Issues: Whether trial court could rely on police report under 156(3) CrPC; applicability of CrPC or BNSS to pre-commencement application; scope of Magistrate's inquiry at pre-cognizance.

Ratio Decidendi: At 156(3) stage, Magistrate applies mind only to complaint averments for prima facie cognizable offence, without police report which pertains to post-cognizance; BNSS savings mandate CrPC procedure for pending matters - Trial court failed independent assessment, improperly invoked BNSS. (Paras 11-18)

Result: Petition allowed; order set aside and remanded.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges dismissal of crpc 156(3) fir application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. directors defrauded shareholder via misappropriation and irregularities. (Para 6)
3. trial court dismissed relying on police status report. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. 156(3) crpc requires pre-cognizance prima facie review. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. bnss savings clause mandates crpc for pending proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. 156(3) distinct from 202; pre- vs post-cognizance. (Para 17 , 18)
7. error: police report improper at 156(3) stage. (Para 19 , 20)
8. remand trial court for fresh 156(3) crpc decision. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of the , against the order dated 2.4.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra at Dharamshala, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Cr. MA No. 506 of 2024, titled as Keshav Dutt Shridhar vs. Kamlesh Kumar and Others .

2. By way of the order dated 2.4.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application preferred, by the petitioner, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, seeking registration of FIR, against respondents No.1 and 2.

3. Vide order dated 01.08.2025, the State has been ordered to be impleaded, as, respondent No.3, in this case, and notice of the petition was ordered to be confined only to respondent No.3-State.

4. Record of the case has been requisitioned.

5. The parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as, were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

6. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, before this Court, as, emerge from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

6.1. Complainant Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, has filed an application, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, for registration of the FIR, against respondents No.1 and 2, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and Nishant Sharma, on the basis of the following facts:-

1. That the complainant is a practising Lawyer of more that forty-40 years of practise and experience and is a designated Senior Advocate of High Court of H.P. at Shimla.
That he has his permanent address as mentioned in the memo of the complaint/application.
2. That, he is as well a director and shareholder in M/S Shri Chamunda Laboratories and Projects Pvt. Ltd. With Regd. Office at A-1/228, Ground Floor, KH No. 1629/1, Phase V, Aya Nagar, Extension, Near Sanjay Tubewell New Delhi- 110047.
3. That, it is worthwhile to mention that Shri Chamunda Laboratories and Projects Pvt. Ltd, is a company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the companies Act having its registered office at A-1/228, Ground Floor, KH No. 1629/1, Phase V, Aya Nagar, Extension, Near Sanjay Tubewell, New Delhi-110047. That the respondent-accused Nos. 1& 2 are the Directors and Shareholders in the company and respondent/accused no. 1 is the father of the accused no. 2.
4. That the complainant/applicant came in contact with the respondents/accused nos. 1 & 2 sometime in the years 2004. That the respondent/accused nos. 1 & 2 in their capacity as Directors of the company represented that the company was engaged in the hospitality business in Himachal Pradesh and successfully running a Hotel under the name and style of Hotel Sai Gardens at Palampur, now having 57 rooms/cottages, restaurants and Banquet.
This, company, as aforestated somewhere in the year 2010, also built a Mega Mall which constituted a commercial space i.e. 23000 sq. feet at Bhagsu Nath, Upper Dharamshala. That due to various circumstances and assurance, which later turned out to be false and misleading and completely incorrect, the applicant/complainant agreed to invest in the company and became a 50% shareholder in the company.
5. That the applicant/complainant besides becoming 50% owner of the company was also offered a seat in the board of the company. That the applicant





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top