Ashish Sharma vs Anupam - 2026 Supreme(HP) 745

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(HP) 745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ashish Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Anupam - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 180 of 2026
Decided On : 08-07-2026

Important Points

Before filing a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, complainant must exhaust remedies under Section 154(1) and (3); criminal court cannot adjudicate validity of departmental proceedings.

Subject

Criminal Procedure - Private Complaint - Exhaustion of Police Remedies

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.406, S.420, S.463, S.468, S.471
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154(1), S.154(3), S.156(3)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226

Headnote

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154(1), 154(3) and 156(3) - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 173(4) and 175(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 463, 468-471 - Prior exhaustion of police remedies - Before filing complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, complainant must first approach officer in charge of police station under Section 154(1) and, if refused, under Section 154(3). (Paras 13-16) - Requirements codified under BNSS as per Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 2 SCC 622. (Para 15)

(B) Administrative Law - Void vs voidable orders - An order of removal from service, even if void, remains effective until set aside by competent forum - Criminal court cannot sit in appeal over findings of departmental inquiry - Complaint alleging fake experience certificate based on alleged infirmity in inquiry is not maintainable. (Paras 9-11) - Reliance on State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, (1996) 1 SCC 435 and Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar, (2020) 7 SCC 275. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent/accused had issued a forged experience certificate mentioning suspension and removal after a proper inquiry, whereas the inquiry was allegedly not proper because the complainant's father was not cross-examined. The learned trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not complied with Section 154(1) and (3) CrPC before approaching the court. The revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, holding that the validity of the inquiry could not be adjudicated by a criminal court. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the order of removal had not been set aside by any competent authority and remained valid; therefore, the basis of the complaint that the inquiry was fake was legally incorrect. Further, the complainant had failed to exhaust remedies under Section 154(1) and (3) CrPC before filing the complaint under Section 156(3). The requirements of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 have been codified under BNSS. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 to be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund.

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint could be entertained without prior approach to the police under Section 154(1) and (3) CrPC? (ii) Whether a criminal court can examine the validity of a departmental inquiry and treat the order as non-existent?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a complainant must first approach the police under Section 154(1) and (3) before invoking the Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175(3) BNSS. Additionally, an order of removal, even if allegedly void, continues to be effective until set aside by a competent forum; a criminal court cannot sit in appeal over findings of a departmental inquiry. Therefore, the complaint alleging a forged certificate based on an alleged infirmity in the inquiry was not maintainable. Result : Petition dismissed with costs of ₹10,000.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: In person.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 04.11.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned revisional Court) vide which the order dated 28.03.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. III, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (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 complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 463, 468-471, etc. of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the accused is working in Dayanand Public School, The Mall, Shimla, H.P. and was involved in unfair recruitment to the post of PGT (IP) in the year 2018. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of higher authorities. The higher authorities suspended the complainant on 07.12.2019, instead of taking any action against the accused. A list of witnesses was supplied in the memorandum, in which the name of Mr R.C. Sharma was not mentioned, but his document was attached with imputation No.8. A false allegation of breach of conduct was made against the complainant. An inquiry was conducted against the complainant, but the cross-examination of Mr R.C. Sharma was not conducted. Since there was no cross-examination, hence, the inquiry was not a proper inquiry under the law. A fake report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, and the complainant was removed from his job on 07.12.2021. The accused issued an experience certificate mentioning the words suspension and removal of service after holding a proper inquiry. The accused was aware of the fact that the inquiry was not properly conducted because R.C Sharma was not examined. The accused had created a fake experience certificate to harass and defame the complainant; therefore, it was prayed that an action be taken against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court held that the complainant should have complied with the provisions of Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before filing the complaint as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs State of UP 2015 AIRSCW 20175, but he had failed to do so; hence, the complaint 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, District Shimla (learned revisional Court). The learned revisional Court held that the complainant was removed from service after a disciplinary inquiry. A letter written by the complainant’s father was the basis of the charge. He was not cited as a witness, and he could not be cross-examined. These allegations are to be adjudicated by the competent authority examining the validity of the enquiry and not by the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court cannot sit over the findings of the departmental proceedings. Learned Trial Court had dismissed the complaint after affording a proper opportunity to the complainant. Therefore, the revision preferred by the complainant was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the complainant has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material placed on record. The accused had created a fake experience certificate, containing false information. The document was created to harass and defame the complainant’s reputation. Anyone who makes a false and disrespectful statement about another person can be held liable for defamation; therefore, it was prayed that the orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside and the action be taken against the accused.

6. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in pers