Back
2026 Supreme(HP) 763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ashish Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1018 of 2025
Decided On : 08-07-2026
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
The procedural requirements established in Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of UP regarding the necessity of approaching police authorities before seeking a Magistrate's order for an FIR are now codified under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Headnote:The case involves an analysis of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner sought the registration of an FIR alleging that the accused personated a public servant to conduct an unauthorized inquiry. The Trial Court and Revisional Court dismissed the complaint, noting that the petitioner failed to approach the Station House Officer (SHO) prior to seeking judicial intervention and submitted incomplete documentation. The primary issue was whether the mandatory requirement to approach police authorities before filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, as established in Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of UP, applies to the BNSS. The Court held that these judicial safeguards have been codified under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, making it mandatory for applicants to furnish proof of an application made to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge. The present petition is dismissed with the cost of ₹10,000/-.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, 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 under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the registration of the F.I.R for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 415, 419, 420, 463, 468-471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the accused had submitted before the State Human Rights Commission on affidavit that he was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC. He personated as a public servant and conducted an inquiry into the suspension matter of the complainant. Therefore, it was prayed that the F.I.R. be registered against him, the inquiry conducted by him be declared null and void, and compensation be awarded to the complainant.
3. Learned Trial Court held that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Shrivastva & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others in Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012, it is mandatory to approach the Station House Officer (SHO) before praying for the registration of FIR through the Court. In the present case, there was no allegation that the complainant had approached the SHO. Hence, the complaint under Section 223 of BNSS was not maintainable.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Additional Session Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, H.P. (Learned Revisional Court). The Learned Revisional Court held that the complainant had not brought the complete document or its certified copy on record. He has only filed the front page of the document, which does not contain the signatures or the name of the deponent. It is impermissible to decide a matter without going through the entire document. The criminal machinery cannot be set in motion on an incomplete document. There was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the revision was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the petitioner/complainant has approached this Court, asserting that the learned Courts below purposely neglected their official duty and responsibility towards society. The material on record clearly showed that the accused had violated various provisions of the IPC by filing an affidavit before the State Human Rights Commission that he was not a public servant. He had wrongly acted as an inquiry officer and issued a fake report. The learned Courts below failed to adhere to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of UP. The Trial Court had not applied the judicial mind and violated the provisions of natural justice by dismissing the complaint. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders passed by the learned courts below be set aside.
6. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.
7. The petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant. The complaint disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, and an FIR should have been registered. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. State of UP was not followed, and it was wrongly held that it is necessary to approach the Station House Officer before filing the complaint before the Court. He prayed that the present petition
