IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 842 of 2023

Reserved on: 27.11.2025

Date of Decision: 1.1.2026.

Saranjeet Singh Likhare and another ...Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and another ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioners : M/s Ajay Sipahiya, Tarun Mehta

and Gaurav Chaudhary,

Advocates.

For Respondent No.1/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge:

The petitioners have filed the present petition for

quashing of FIR No. 31 of 2023, dated 2.5.2023, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamba, HP, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 451 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

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

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the informant/respondent No.2, Kuldeep Singh, made a complaint to the police that he is the tenant of the property known as Likhari house, located at Dalhousie. The rent agreement was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Dalhousie, on 27.10.2021. Saranjeet Singh Likhari, his wife, Paramjeet Kaur Likhari, and one unknown person broke into the property of the informant on 28.4.20u23 and tried to take its forcible possession by breaking opoen the locks. He had made a complaint on 24.4.2023,C but no action was taken. Hence, it was prayed that action be taken against them.

3. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.

4. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the investigation, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR. It has been asserted that petitioner No.1/accused, Sardar Saranjeet Singh Likhari, had filed a civil suit for a declaration that the Will dated 1.4.1998, registered on 11.3.2019 in favour of one Jagdeesh Kaur Rihal, sister of the petitioner No.1/accused, stated to have been executed by Amolak Singh Likhari (father of petitioner No.1/accused and Jagdeesh Kaur Rihal), was forged and fabricated. An interim injunction was granted by the learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, on 19.4.2023. Jagdeesh Kaur Rihal leased out the property to the informant/respondent No.2. He hired Gurmukh Singh as caretaker of the property. The petitioners were entering Likhari House on 28.4.2023 when Gurmukh Singh stopped them. An altercation occurred.u The police reached the spot. The medical examination of tohe accused/petitioner No.2 was conducted by the police, anCd one grievous injury, and two simple injuries were found on her body. FIR No. 30 of 2023, dated 1.5.2023 was registered against Gurmukh Singh regarding the incident. The informant lodged the present FIR as a counterblast to the FIR Hlodged by the petitioners/accused. The property belongs to the petitioners/accused, and they had obtained an injunction order from the Court. The ingredients of Section 451 of the IPC are not satisfied. Petitioner No.2 was not even present on the spot. The petitioners are senior citizens, and they could not use any criminal force against the informant or his caretaker. The petitioners are the citizens of Canada, and Jagdeesh Kaur Rihal got the mutation attested in her favour, taking advantage of the petitioners’ absence. The petitioners did not enter into the property with any criminal intent. The civil dispute is pending between the parties, and the criminal proceedings are not maintainable. The mutation was attested without serving any notice upon the petitioner No.1. The FIR was lodged on 2.5.2023 and is belated. The petitioners have also lodged the FIR on 1.5.2023 against Gurmukh Singh. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition bue allowed and the FIR be quashed.

5. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1/State by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of main tainability, and the existence of a prima facie case in the petitioners’ favour. The c