IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.594 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Pradeep Kumar Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.

uAnish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.9.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in CIS Reg. No. 06 of 2019 (Regd. No.4 of 2019), titled as State v. Harbhaj Sharma and Ors., whereby prayer made by the petitioner (accused No.2-Pradeep Kumar Thakur) to discharge him for his Hhaving allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 8 & 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section

13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be rejected.

2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR No.1 of 2016 dated 29.3.2016, came to be registered against the petitioner as well as other co-accused by SV & ACB, Police Station Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, for their having allegedly forged the documents of registration of vehicles as well as issuance of driving licenses without there being .any authority.

3. After completion of investigation, SHO SV&ACB, Kullu, presented charge sheet against the accuse d persons namely Harbhaj Sharma, Pradeep Kumar and Avinaosh Chander, Notary Public, for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 8 & 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. u

4. Learned trial Court after having perused final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC, listed the matter for framing of charge on 16.9.2025, on which date, prayer came to be made by the petitioner as well as other co-accused for their discharge, however learned trial Court rejected their prayer for discharge, whereas 3rd accused Avinash Chander came to be discharged on account of protection granted to Notary Public under Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and discharge him.

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein, who was only deputed for two days for registration of licenses, has been falsely implicated, whereas RLA Kullu, who was otherwise competent authority to issue license has been not made accused. Mr. Palsra vehemently argued that lea.rned trial Court has fallen in grave error by not considering the instructions contained in letter/instructions dated 25.8.2005 in its lett er and spirit. He submitted that in terms afore instructions, no Doriving License can be issued without conducting the proficiency test. He further submitted that as per State Motor Vehicle Rules, competent authority to conduct tests is a board of inspection consisting ouf RLAs and the MVIs. He submitted that since petitioner was not alone to conduct the test, rather same was conducted in presence of RLA and ultimately driving licenses were issued under the signature of RLA, there was no occasion, if any, to make the petitioner accused, rather RLA ought to have been arraigned as an accused.

6. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner i