Ashish Sharma vs V. Singh - 2026 Supreme(HP) 556

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) - Section 175(3) (corresponding to Section 156(3) of CrPC) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195 - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 13(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177, 181, 191 to 211, 406, 420, 464, 468-471 - Inherent powers of the High Court to intervene under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) even when a second revision is barred under Section 397(3) of CrPC, provided there is a grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of the process of the court, or non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedure (Paras 8-13) - Distinction between a ‘wrong statement’ and a ‘false statement’ under Sections 199 and 200 of IPC; only a ‘false statement’ made with deliberate intention to gain an undue advantage warrants the initiation of proceedings (Para 14) - Proceedings before the statutory Commission are deemed judicial proceedings; therefore, cognizance of offences under Sections 193-196, 199, 200, 205-211 and 228 of IPC, or forgery in respect of documents produced in such proceedings, cannot be taken except upon a written complaint from the concerned Court/Commission under Section 195(1)(b) (Paras 16-19) - Magistrate cannot order registration of an FIR for non-cognizable offences; the Magistrate is obliged to apply his mind to determine if the allegations constitute a cognizable offence before ordering police investigation (Paras 20-24) - Where cognizable and non-cognizable offences are committed in the course of the same transaction, it is impermissible to split the complaint to take cognizance only of the cognizable offences (Paras 25-27) - Compliance with procedural safeguards for requesting an FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS (codifying principles from Priyanka Srivastava case) is mandatory, including furnishing a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police supported by an affidavit (Paras 28-40).

Facts of the case:
A complainant sought the registration of an FIR and compensation, alleging that the accused had filed a false affidavit before a statutory commission. The trial court dismissed the complaint, stating the complainant had not approached the police. This was upheld by the revisional court, which noted that the alleged offences were non-cognizable. The petitioner then approached the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the orders of the lower courts.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the threshold of a 'false statement' made intentionally for undue advantage. Since the alleged perjury occurred during a judicial proceeding before a commission, the bar under Section 195 of CrPC applied, making a written complaint from the commission a mandatory prerequisite. The court further held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to order an FIR for non-cognizable offences and that a composite complaint involving the same transaction cannot be split. Additionally, the petitioner failed to prove compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements for seeking an FIR under BNSS.

Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers to override a bar on second revision, and whether the lower courts were correct in refusing to order an FIR for offences occurring in a judicial proceeding which were largely non-cognizable and barred by Section 195 CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) are exercised sparingly. Because the alleged offences were committed in relation to a judicial proceeding, Section 195 CrPC prohibits the court from taking cognizance without a written complaint from the concerned commission. Furthermore, a Magistrate cannot order the registration of an FIR for non-cognizable offences, and if cognizable and non-cognizable offences are part of the same transaction, they cannot be split for the purpose of taking cognizance.

Result: Petition fails and is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Complaint sought FIR registration alleging false affidavit before Human Rights Commission; trial and revisional courts dismissed it. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Complainant contended complaint disclosed cognizable offences, email proved prior police complaint, and courts failed to act on alleged perjury. (Para 5 , 6 )

3. Court found complaint disclosed no false statement, involved non-cognizable and Section 195-barred offences, and lacked sufficient proof of prior police complaint. (Para 15 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 28 , 30 )

4. Inherent power is exceptional; false statement requires intent; Section 195 bars cognizance absent court complaint; no FIR for non-cognizable offences; composite complaints cannot be split; Section 175(3) preconditions apply. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 )

5. Petition dismissed with costs; pending applications disposed of. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )

6. Can the High Court exercise inherent power under Section 528 BNSS after a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court?

Yes, but only sparingly and exceptionally to prevent grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process; it may not be used as a substitute for a second revision. The bar on second revision does not extinguish the inherent power. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

7. What is the distinction between a wrong statement and a false statement under Sections 199 and 200 IPC?

A wrong statement may not amount to a false statement. A false statement must be made deliberately or intentionally to gain an undue advantage; initiation of prosecution requires a prima facie case of a false statement, not merely a wrong statement. (Para 14 , 15 )

8. Can a private complaint or FIR be entertained for an offence allegedly committed in a proceeding before the State Human Rights Commission?

No. Proceedings before the Commission are judicial proceedings and it is deemed a civil court for Section 195 CrPC. Cognizance of offences committed in such proceedings requires a written complaint by the Commission; Section 195 bars private complaint. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )

9. What prerequisites limit a Magistrate's power to order investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS?

The application must disclose a cognizable offence; if the offences are non-cognizable or barred, no FIR can be directed. The applicant must first approach the police and file a supporting affidavit; the Magistrate must apply judicial mind. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 )

10. Can cognizance be taken only of cognizable offences when the complaint also alleges non-cognizable offences committed in the same transaction?

No. A composite complaint or challan cannot be split; if the non-cognizable or Section 195-barred offences are part of the same transaction, cognizance of the entire complaint is barred and prosecution is vitiated. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.04.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Revisional Court), vide which the order dated 16.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla (learned trial Court), was upheld. (The 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 petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 177, 181, 191, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 209, 406, 419, 420, 464, 468-471 of Indian Penal Code IPC. It was asserted that the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused before the State Human Rights Commission. The accused and his counsel filed a false affidavit by mentioning the incorrect complaint number. The complainant filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and the SHO, Police Station, Chhotta Shimla, for registration of FIR; however, no action was taken. Therefore, it was prayed that cognisance of the commission of offences to register an FIR may be taken and compensation of Rs. 10.00 lacs be awarded to the complainant.

3. Learned Trial Court held that the complainant had not approached the police for the registration of the FIR, and the complaint was not maintainable. Hence, it was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla (learned Revisional Court). The learned Revisional Court held that the offences punishable under Sections 199, 200 and 205 of the IPC are non-cognizable and no investigation could have been ordered by the learned Magistrate. The complainant did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the revision was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below, the complainant has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to follow the appropriate procedure. No report was called from the police. The complainant had filed PE-1 to show that the complaint was made to the SHO and the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. The accused had committed perjury, and learned Courts below erred in not taking action against the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by learned Courts below be set aside.

6. The petitioner, in person, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in not taking action against the accused. The complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, and the learned Courts below should have ordered the registration of the FIR. A printout of the email was filed before the learned Courts below to show that the complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and the SHO, Chhotta Shimla by way of email, and it was wrongly held that the complainant had not made any complaint to the police. The affidavit was forged before filing it in the Court, and there was no requirement of making the complaint by the State Human Rights Commission. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and order passed by learned Courts below be set aside.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) against an order dismissing the revision petition. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnan v. In Krishnaveni (1997) 4 SCC 241, the High Court can intervene under Section 482 of CrPC (cor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(HP) 556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ashish Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
V. Singh - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 598 of 2026
Decided On : 13-08-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Can the High Court exercise inherent power under Section 528 BNSS after a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court?

7. What is the distinction between a wrong statement and a false statement under Sections 199 and 200 IPC?

8. Can a private complaint or FIR be entertained for an offence allegedly committed in a proceeding before the State Human Rights Commission?

9. What prerequisites limit a Magistrate's power to order investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS?

10. Can cognizance be taken only of cognizable offences when the complaint also alleges non-cognizable offences committed in the same transaction?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(HP) 556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, J.Ashish Sharma - PetitionerVersusV. Singh - RespondentCr. MMO No. 598 of 2026Decided On : 13-08-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Can the High Court exercise inherent power under Section 528 BNSS after a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court?

7. What is the distinction between a wrong statement and a false statement under Sections 199 and 200 IPC?

8. Can a private complaint or FIR be entertained for an offence allegedly committed in a proceeding before the State Human Rights Commission?

9. What prerequisites limit a Magistrate's power to order investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS?

10. Can cognizance be taken only of cognizable offences when the complaint also alleges non-cognizable offences committed in the same transaction?

Cases Referred (20)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ashish Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
V. Singh - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 598 of 2026
Decided On : 13-08-2026