IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1280 of 2024

Reserved on: 02.09.2025

Decided on: 02.12.2025.

Raksha Devi …...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others o ……Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the Petitioner: M/s Arvind Sharma and Kiran

Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents, Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate

General for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No.2 and 4.

Proceedings against respondent

No. 3 stand abated.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing the order 15.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. vide which the cancellation report submitted in F.I.R. No. 43 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323 read

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act) at Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P. was accepted. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) f

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informatnt made a complaint to the police, asserting that she, Durgi Devi and Veena Devi were cutting the grass on 18.10.2022 at about 3:30 p.m. when Layak Ram, Roshan Lal and Sukh Ram attacked them. Sukh Ram abused the informant and other women in the name of their caste. He said hthat he would not permit them to cut the grass. The matter was reported to the police through a written application. The police registered the FIR, investigated the matter and found that the allegations made in the FIR were not proved. There were material contradictions in the statements of the informant and other witnesses. The place of the incident was owned by the Forest Department. The police seized the video recording of the incident, which showed that the informant party was pelting stones at the accused. No stick was found in Layak Ram’s hand. No evidence of cutting the grass was found on the spot. The informant and other persons had stopped the villagers from grazing their cattle on the disputed land. The relationship between the informant and the accused was strained. Therefore, it was prayed that the final report be accepted and the F.I.R. be cancelled

3. The informant filed the objections to the police report, asserting that the police had not properly investigated the matter. The police hatd initially refused to register the informant’s F.I.R. The statements were not recorded as per their version. The Investigating Officer compelled the informant to compromise the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the cancellation report be rejected.

h4. Learned Trial Court held that the facts alleged by the ginformant were not confirmed during the investigation. The ivideo recording did not corroborate the informant’s version. No bias or unfairness could be gathered from the investigation. Hence, the cancellation report was accepted, and the F.I.R. was quashed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the informant has filed the present petition asserting that the statements of the witnesses and the material collected on record disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence. The police did not properly investigate the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside

6. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1/State by filing a reply, making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on the merits. tIt was asserted that the police investigated the matter as per the procedure established by law. The allegations made in the FIR were not substantiated after the investigation. The inform