The High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, must not conduct a mini-trial to determine the veracity of FIR allegations; if a charge sheet is filed and prima facie offences are disclosed, the accused must instead seek discharge before the trial court.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.107 of 2022, dated 15.10.2022, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 454, 448, 423, 506, 427 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Vishal Seth, son of informant Varsha Seth, had taken a shop from petitioner Sukhvinder Singh for running a clinic in the year 2011. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and Visal Seth. Vishal Seth paid ₹2,00,000/- as security, and the rent was fixed as ₹12,000/- per month. Vishal Seth left the country on 20.1.2016. The informant, her husband and her daughter-in-law, Megha Seth, used to look after the clinic. The informant’s husband and daughter-in-law went to the clinic on 8.4.2022 and found it to be locked. They reported the matter to the police. The informant and her husband had gone to Shimla on 26.4.2022. Sheela Devi informed them on 26.4.2022 that Sukhvinder and his wife, Ravneet Kaur, had entered the clinic after breaking the lock. They had put their sewing machine in the clinic and had taken possession of the clinic. The informant reported the matter to the police. The police visited the spot, and the informant found many articles missing. The informant and her husband went to the clinic on 10.5.2022, where Sukhvinder, Ravneet Kaur, Mansha Singh and Maan Kaur had a scuffle with them. They also threatened to kill the informant’s husband if he entered the clinic. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police collected the documents and recorded the statements of witnesses. The police found after the investigation that the informant and her husband were taking care of the clinic. Ravneet Kaur had repeatedly asked the informant and her husband to vacate the clinic. The rent was increased to ₹13,100/-. The accused put the lock on the clinic on 8.4.2022. She put her articles inside the clinic on 26.4.2022. Hence, the police filed a charge sheet before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising out of it. It has been asserted that FIR and further proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. Vishal Seth had taken the premises for running the private clinic. He left the country on 20.1.2016 and did not return. The informant was not a tenant, and the Rent Controller had held so. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State and Mr Anshul Jairath, learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant.

5. Mr Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Rent Controller has held that the informant is not a tenant and she has no locus sta