Ashish Sharma vs Anupam - 2026 Supreme(HP) 749

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

2026 Supreme(HP) 749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ashish Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Anupam - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 184 of 2026
Decided On : 08-07-2026

Important Points

An administrative or departmental order remains valid and effective until it is set aside by a competent court or authority; a criminal court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of a departmental inquiry.

Subject

Criminal - Quashing/Setting Aside Order

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.406, S.420, S.463, S.468, S.471, S.500, S.501
KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT : S.85(7)

Headnote

The petitioner sought to set aside orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court which had dismissed a criminal complaint filed under Sections 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, 500, and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that a domestic inquiry leading to his removal from service was improper because a witness was not cross-examined, and that an experience certificate mentioning a 'proper inquiry' was a forged document created to defame him. The courts below held that the remedy lay in challenging the departmental proceedings before a competent authority rather than through a criminal complaint. The primary issue was whether a criminal court can adjudicate the validity of a departmental inquiry or treat an administrative order as non-existent if it is allegedly void. The court reasoned that an administrative or departmental order, even if void or voidable, remains effective inter partes until it is successfully challenged and set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. It was held that a criminal court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by an inquiry officer. the present petition is dismissed with the cPost of ₹10,000/-

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 16.12.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. V, 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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused for committing offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, 500 and 501, etc., of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It has been asserted that the accused is employed at Dayanand Public School, The Mall, Shimla, H.P. She was involved in unfair recruitment to the post of PGT (IP) in the year 2018. The complainant brought this to the notice of higher authorities. However, they did not take any action against the accused; rather, they suspended the complainant vide letter dated 07.12.2019. A list of witnesses was provided to the complainant, which included Ved Prakash as witness No.13, but no document signed by him was placed in the memorandum dated 02.01.2020. An inquiry was conducted, but Ved Prakash was not cross-examined; therefore, the inquiry is not proper as understood in law. The complainant was removed from his services on 7.12.2021. The accused issued an experience certificate stating, ‘the suspension and removal from service after holding a proper inquiry’. This is a false recital because no proper inquiry was conducted. A fake document was created to harass and defame the complainant; hence, the complaint was filed to take action as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court held that the complainant was aggrieved by the order of suspension passed against him. The complainant was suspended after a domestic inquiry. The record did not show that any cognizable offence was committed. The complainant had a remedy to approach the appropriate forum instead of filing the complaint. The complainant intended to create undue pressure on the members of the Inquiry Committee; 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. 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 afforded a proper opportunity and dismissed the complaint after it was found that no cognizable offence was made out. 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 person.

7. The petitioner submitted that Ved Prakash was mentioned as a witness in the memorandum, but he was not cross-examined. An inquiry conducted without examining all the witnesses is not a proper inquiry. A fake experience certificate was