IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1012 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of Decisio n: 23.01.2026 Anuradha Sagar o ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another t ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr Kunal Madan, Mr Naresh K. Sharma, and Ms Bhawna h learned Advocates.

For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

For respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr Ajay Kochchar, Senior Advocate, with Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 147 of 2025 dated 23.09.2025 registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 308(2) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita 2023(BNS).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.2/informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that the petitioner Anuradha Sagar is his daughter-in-law. The informant is running his business at Palampur. The relationship of the petitioner and her husband is strained, and they are residing separately. The petitioner demanded ₹15,00,00,000/- from the informant and asked him to transferu his property situated at Delhi in her name. The informanto transferred ₹4,00,000/-to the petitioner’s account toC purchase a house in Santa Barbara, California, USA. He transferred the money to the petitioner repeatedly to avoid unnecessary harassment and humiliation. The petitioner asked the informant to transfer the property in her name and deliver Hthe money; otherwise, she would file a false complaint against him. She had filed several complaints against the informant. She also told the informant to transfer the property in her name; otherwise, she would implicate him in such a false case that he would remember it for the rest of his life. The petitioner filed a false complaint against the informant at Police Station Kalkaji on 29.05.2023, which was dismissed. She also made a complaint against the informant at Cuttack (Odisha), which was dismissed. She filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- 06 South East, Distt. New Delhi, which was also dismissed. Hence, it was prayed that an action be taken against the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, asserting that the petitioner married the informant’s son and started residing with him at New Delhi. She had gone to Cuttack, Orissaafter her father’s death. She received a notice from the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi about a civil suit filed by the informant against her. The informant had claimed in the civil suit that he had purchased a house in the USA for the petitioner as a gift. The Hon’ble High Court passed an order for separate rented accommodation in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a complaint of fraud against the informant and an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC for the registration of the FIR, which was converted into a complaint case. The petitioner also filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Various litigations are pending between the parties. The petitioner never committed any extortion, and false allegations were made against her. The informant filed a false complaint as a counterblast to the cases instituted by the petitioner. The police at Palampur do not have any jurisdiction to investigate the matter. The petitioner is a resident of Gurugram, and the informant is residing in Delhi. Petitioner never visited Palampur. No offence punishable under Section 308 (2) of BNS is made out againstu the petitioner. The allegations show a family dispute obetween the parties and do not constitute extortion aCs is understood in law. The informant’s son and the petitioner had agreed on a m