Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Gurdev Sharma & others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1098 of 2025
Decided On : 17-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate, with Ms Ambika Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

FIR not quashable where allegations of blocking judicial officer's residence and demanding bail prima facie show criminal trespass intent to intimidate; no mini-trial, accept FIR as true, especially post charge-sheet with delay.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 448, 186 read with 34 - Criminal trespass and obstructing public servant - Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC - Allegations that petitioners, relatives of accused in custody, blocked passage to judicial officer's residence, sat outside shouting for immediate bail post-remand order - Even if accepted, prima facie constitute offences as entry/remaining with intent to intimidate/annoy possessor - No right to access as court post-judicial proceedings end - Judicial officer entitled to respect; cannot be intimidated for bail - No mini-trial at quashing stage; accept FIR averments as true. (Paras 9,14,17,18)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing parameters - Bhajan Lal categories applicable - Where FIR allegations disclose cognizable offence, no quashing - Post charge-sheet and notice of accusation, trial court to proceed; unexplained delay bars interference - No interference if alternate remedies available. (Paras 9,23,25)

Facts of the case:
Informant, posted as judicial magistrate, remanded accused to custody at residence functioning as court. Relatives, including advocates, approached post-order for bail listed next day; after counsel left, blocked door passage, sat shouting demands, confining informant with family till police called; FIR registered, charge-sheet filed, notice of accusation issued; petitioners sought quashing claiming no offence ingredients, non-threatening body language, court access right.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; FIR and proceedings not quashed; matter left to trial court; observations confined to petition disposal.

Issues: Whether FIR allegations prima facie constitute offences under Sections 448, 186 IPC; validity of quashing post charge-sheet/notice amid delay; right to enter judicial residence as court; intention to offend absent threat.

Ratio Decidendi: FIR quashing only if allegations fail Bhajan Lal tests, especially no prima facie offence; here, insistence on bail by blocking/sitting/shouting shows trespass intent to intimidate; post-proceedings, no court access claim; no credibility assessment or mini-trial; delay and trial progress bar inherent powers exercise.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts of petitioners blocking magistrate's residence after remand order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners argue fir lacks offence ingredients and threatening intent. (Para 4 , 6)
3. petition dismissed; proceedings continue before trial court. (Para 5 , 8 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. state opposes quashing as cognizable offences disclosed. (Para 7)
5. bhajan lal categories for quashing fir if no prima facie offence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. allegations prima facie satisfy trespass, confinement; no intimidation right. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. no mini-trial to test fir veracity under section 482 crpc. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. belated quashing petitions not entertained due to laches. (Para 23 , 24)
9. trial court seized post charge-sheet; no high court interference. (Para 25)

Judgment J.

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 211 of 2021, dated 02.10.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. (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 informant was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, H.P. She was present in her home on 02.10.2021. The accused Jeevan Lal was produced before her by ASI Nagender in F.I.R. No. 308 of 2021 registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. She enquired the Investigating Officer about the remand counsel and she was informed that the accused Jeevan Lal was in touch with his children, who are Advocates. The informant remanded the accused to police custody at about 4:45 p.m. until 3.10.2021. HC Sharma, Advocate and one woman, who identified herself to be Advocate, came to the informant’s residence at about 5:20 p.m. and moved a bail application, which was listed for 3.10.2021. The Advocate pressed for bail. The informant told them that the order had already been passed and the matter would be taken up on 03.10.2021. The Advocates left, and the informant followed them out. She noticed that some people were standing outside the door of her house. They wanted to enter the informant’s house and talk to her. They blocked the passage and sat there, demanding the immediate release of the accused. The informant told them that the order had been passed, their Advocate had also left, and nothing could be done. They shouted and continued to sit outside the informant’s residence. The informant called the police and reported the matter to the police. The people left the place before the arrival of the police. The informant, her parents, aged 70 years and her son, aged about 4 years, were kept confined to the house by blocking the passage. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police identified the petitioners as the persons who had blocked the passage and shouted outside the informant’s house, and filed a charge sheet against them.

3. The learned Trial Court put notice of accusation to the accused on 24.02.2025 and listed the matter for recording the statement of witnesses.

4. Being aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R., filing of charge-sheet and putting of notice of accusation, the petitioners/accused approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. It is asserted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not fulfill the ingredients of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 186 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Trial Court erred in putting the notice of accusation to the accused. The informant had specifically stated that the petitioners’ body language was not threatening. They wanted to come inside and wanted to talk. Petitioners’ intention was not to commit any offence. The building at the releva