IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 482 of 2025 Reserved on: 21.06.2025 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025.

Ashish Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. ...Respondents Coram r Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Sharma, petitioner in person.

For Res pondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Jitender Sharma, h Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla (learned Revisional Court) and order dated 02.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Shimla, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which, the application for registration of the FIR for the commission of offences

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

…2…

punishable under Sections 192, 197, 199, 200, 205, 406, 420, 120B, 468 to 471 etc. of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving riseH to the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court for the registration of the FIR, asserting that an afÏdavit was filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Human Rights Commission falsely describing herself to be a Principal of MASDAV Public School. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Hence, it was prayed that an FIR be registered against the respondent no. 3.

3. Learned Trial Court held that the application did not disclose that the error in the designation was proved to be false, and the filing of the false afÏdavit led to the formation of an erroneous opinion touching the matter pending before the Human Rights Commission. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

4. The petitioner filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (CBI Court) (learned Revisional Court). Learned Revisional Court held that the offences alleged in the application are non-cognizable and no …3…

Court can take cognisance of such offences except on the complaint made in writing by the authority before whom the afÏdavit was filed. The record showed that the address mentioned by the respondent was allowed to be corrected by the Commission, subject to the payment of a cost of ₹1,000/-. This clearly suggested that the afÏdavit submitted by the respondent no. 4 was not false but contained a typographical error. A Magistrate isu not bound to direct an investigation simply because ano application has been filed before her. There was no infirmCity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court;

hence, the revision was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by learned Courts below, the present petition has been filed asserting that the learned Trial Court violated the procedure and did not call for a status report. The respondent No.3 had impersonated herself as a principal and submitted a false afÏdavit. The complaint was limited to impersonation and creating a false afÏdavit. Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application, and learned Revisional Court erred in upholding …4…

the order. Therefore, it was prayed that the orders passed by learned Courts below be set aside.

6. I have heard the petitioner/comHplainant who appeared in person. He submitted that he has a fundamental right to make a complaint regarding the filing of the false afÏdavit. Learned Trial Court erred in denying this right to him. When his attention is drawn towards the provisions of Section 215 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 195 of Cr.P.C.), he submitted that the said provision does not apply to the present case.

7. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, supported the orders passed by the learned Courts below.

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

9. The present petition