IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 972 of 2022 Reserved on: March 10, 2026 Date of decision : March 12, 2026 M/s Birla Textile Mills ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents : rMr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, o for respondent No.1 . Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Sande ep Sharma, Judge Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 1.4.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 4-NL/10 of 2018, whereby order dated 30.1.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner- complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) under S.156(3) CrPC, for registration of FIR against the respondent-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 467, 468, 420 and 471 IPC, came to be affirmed, the complainant has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings filed under S.482 CrPC, praying therein to set aside the orders passed by both the courts below and allow

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

the application under S.156(3) CrPC, for registration of FIR against the accused under relevant provisions of law. .

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other relevant material placed on record by the respective parties are that the complainant filed an application under S.156(3) CrPC, in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, praying therein to issue direction to the poloice to lodge an FIR against the accused for forging death certificate of Sunder (father of the accused). Complainant alleged that the accused committed the act of forgery by preparing death certifiucate of above named Sunder and later produced the same in civil suit. Complainant alleged that since civil court did not find the death certificate in question to be genuine, a case under S.467, 468, 420 and 471 IPC was required to be registered against the accused. However, the Magistrate below vie order dated 30.1.2018 (Annexure P- 1), declined the prayer of the complainant to issue direction to the police to register FIR, invoking power under S.156(3) CrPC, but ordered to treat the application under S.156(3) CrPC, as a private complaint and adjourned the same for preliminary evidence on 21.4.2018.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order passed by learned trial Court, complainant preferred a revision under S.397 CrPC in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, however, the same was registered as Cr. Revision No.4-NL/10 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2022. In the afore background, complainant has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings filed under S.482 CrPC for setting aside orders passed by both learned Courts below and issue a direction to the Police authorities to register case against the accused. .

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Divya Raj Singh, Advocate appearing for the complainant is that learned Courts below, while passing impugned orders, failed to take note of the facot that the accused committed the offences punishable under Ss. 467, 468, 420 and 471 IPC, which are cognizable offences, as such, a direction ought to have been issued for registration of case. Mur. Thakur further submitted that the learned Courts below further