Anita Sood vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1637

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Anita Sood – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
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

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 Burea