Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Anita Sood - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
CWP No.4695 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate
FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offences unless exceptional delay over 3 months without explanation permits preliminary inquiry per Lalita Kumari; 12-year laches in forgery complaint justifies police verification before FIR.
Headnote:(A) CrPC - Section 154 - Registration of FIR - Mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence - No preliminary inquiry permissible ordinarily - Exceptions include cases of abnormal delay/laches (over 3 months without explanation), corruption cases, matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence - Preliminary inquiry time-bound (max 7 days) - Scope limited to ascertaining if cognizable offence disclosed - Here, complaint alleging forgery (IPC Section 464) and related offences lodged after 12-year delay from 2010 incident without plausible explanation - Even post 2015 project cancellation, no prompt action - Police justified in seeking departmental verification instead of immediate FIR - Questioned document opinion by private expert not conclusive without court procedure. (Paras 20, 22, 24, 28, 120 of Lalita Kumari)
(B) Writ Petition - Alternate remedies - Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 200 CrPC available for directing FIR or private complaint - Not gone into due to core issue of mandatory FIR. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner society applied for small hydel project; elevation overlapped with prior allotment to respondent No.4 - Meeting held, petitioner allegedly agreed to change via representation dated 29.4.2010; joint site inspection on 31.7.2010 with signatures - New site allotted but not utilized; cancelled in 2015 without challenge - 12 years later (2022), complaint to vigilance alleging forgery of 2010 representation and inspection report signatures by respondent No.4 and officials - Police sought department report confirming presence and signatures; no FIR lodged.
Findings of Court:
No direction for immediate FIR due to inordinate unexplained delay; action of police in conducting preliminary verification upheld - Superintendent of Police directed to take final decision on departmental report within preliminary inquiry framework.
Issues: Whether police bound to register FIR on complaint disclosing cognizable forgery offence or preliminary inquiry permissible given 12-year delay and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Ex facie cognizable offence mandates FIR per Lalita Kumari, but abnormal delay/laches permits preliminary inquiry to test veracity - Here, delay post-allotment, non-challenge to 2015 cancellation, and late discovery claim unconvincing - Departmental confirmation of events supports no immediate FIR; private handwriting expert report lacks evidentiary weight without judicial process.
Result: Prayer for directing FIR registration rejected; Superintendent of Police directed to finalize on departmental report post-preliminary inquiry - Petitioner cautioned for future clean hands.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. forgery complaint discloses cognizable offence mandating fir. (Para 1 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 18) |
| 2. elevation overlap resolved; project allotted, later cancelled. (Para 2 , 3 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. complaints verified by department confirming joint inspection presence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 27) |
| 4. 12-year delay justifies preliminary inquiry per lalita. (Para 11) |
| 5. court recalled order for fresh hearing after arguments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. lalita mandates fir unless delay or exceptions apply. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. unexplained delay precludes mandatory immediate fir registration. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 31) |
| 8. petitioner's qdw report unreliable; procedure not followed. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. vigilance manual permits departmental enquiry first. (Para 30 , 32) |
| 10. reject fir prayer; direct final enquiry decision. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner is that though complaint dated 30.3.2022 (Annexure P-12), submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Dharamshala, (in short “Superintendent of Police”), discloses cognizable offence alleged to be committed by respondent No.4, but yet afore authority failed to lodge FIR at the first instance, which act of him, is in complete violation of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1.
2. Explicitly, facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that an entity named M/s Jagriti Public Educational Society (in short “Jagriti Society”), applied for Kandi, Small Hydel Electric Project (SHEP) in the elevation range of Weir site at 1600m and power House at 1500m on Binwa Khad Stream of Beas basin in Kangra District, vide request letter dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure P-1), addressed to Director HIMURJA, Himachal Pradesh, through petitioner namely Anita Sood. Respondent No.4 also applied for grant of Small Hydel Electric Project to Director HIMURJA under self identified scheme. Since originally applied for elevation by respondent No.4 was found to be overlapping with the elevation range of the petitioner coupled with the fact that respondent No.4 had applied for elevation in question prior in time, respondent No.4 brought the issue to the notice of Director, HIMURJA, who convened meeting in his office on 9.4.2010, regarding review of allotted elevations of Small Hydel Electric Projects of Binwa Khad. Said meeting was allegedly attended by respondent No.4 as well as petitioner alongwith representatives of HIMURJA Department.Allegedly, based upon the discussion held in the afore meeting, petitioner made a written representation on behalf of Jagriti Society on 29.4.2010, offering no objection for change of elevation and for grant of another project of the same capacity in the changed elevation. Allegedly, another representation dated 17.7.2010 was made by the petitioner on behalf of the Jagriti Society, stating therein that pursuant to discussion held in the office of Director, HIMURJA, a joint inspection was conducted at the site for allotment of the project with changed elevations. Jagriti Society agreed for grant of project with changed elevation. On the basis of said representation made by Jagriti Society, site in question was again visited at 31.7.2010. Respondent-department after having accepted the representation of the petitioner allotted the project to the Jagriti Society in the year 2010 with changed elevation. Since despite there being repeated notices, afore society failed to utilize the site, project could not be implemented and respondent department issued cancellation order dated 23.7.2015, as a result thereof, consent letter issued to Jagriti Society on 26.7.2009, was withdrawn. Admittedly,
