Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 07.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 6 June, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:18144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1136 of 2022 Reserved on : 07.03.2025 Decided on : 06.06.2025 Rajeev Vashisht ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram
Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioner-Rajeev Vashisht has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing of FIR No.19/2022, dated 26.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:18144 the 'FIR, in question'), registered with Women Police Station Una, H.P., under Sections 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act'), as well as, all the consequential proceedings, pending in Sessions Trial No.90/2022, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:-
3.1. The police of Women Police Station, Una, has submitted the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, before the learned trial Court, on the ground that on 26.07.2022, Lady Inspector Indu Devi, along with Lady Constable Poonam, had proceeded towards place 'Z' (name withheld), to verify the fact, as reported and recorded in PC-435 dated 18.07.2022, where, the complainant (name 3 2025:HHC:18144 withheld) got recorded his statement, under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC'), to the effect that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint, and retired as Ayurvedic Doctor. He is having two children, one son and one daughter. His daughter was married, whereas, his son is still unmarried.
3.2. According to the complainant, his daughter firstly solemnized marriage in the month of October, 2012, with Dinesh Kumar, R/o 'Y' (name withheld). However, their marriage was dissolved in the year 2016. Out of the said wedlock, daughter of the complainant blessed with a daughter (name withheld) (hereinafter referred to as the 'child victim'), to whom, she had given birth in the year 2014. After divorce, the daughter of the complainant, along with child victim, had started residing with the complainant.
3.3. As per the further contents of the complaint, made by the complainant, on 19.10.2020, daughter of the complainant solemnized second marriage with Rajeev Vashisht (accused-petitioner). After the marriage, child victim was taken by her mother to her in-laws at Bhopal.
4 2025:HHC:18144 The accused was having a four-year-old son from his first marriage. Both the children were residing with the complainant's daughter and accused. The child victim is six-year-old.
3.4. After few days of the marriage, the daughter of the complainant telephonically informed that her husband is beating her and threatening to divorce her. According to the complainant, his daughter has also disclosed that the accused is giving step-motherly treatment and misbehaving with the child victim, upon which, daughter of the complainant also apprised her in-laws.
3.5. On 08.12.2021, at the instance of the daughter of the complainant, complainant brought the child victim to his house. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant was also brought by him to his native place. After residing with the complainant for about one-and-a-half month, the daughter of the complainant had gone to her maternal home, along with the accused, whereas, the child victim refused to accompany them, on the ground that she will reside with her maternal grandparents. When, the child victim, as well as, her mother were residing in the house of the complainant, then, accused came to meet his wife.
5 2025:HHC:18144 House of the accused is stated to be in Rakkad Colony and on one or two occasions, accused took child victim, along with his wife, to his house.
3.6. Thereafter, the child victim had started disclosing the incident of discrimination and wrong act, to the complainant, as well as, to his wife. The child victim, according to the complainant, has disclosed that the accused, to whom, she had allegedly referred to as 'chote papa' took her to room and touched her private parts.
Complainant has further got mentioned in the complaint that the child victim has also disclosed that when, she was with the complainant at a place 'A' (name withheld), then, accused had also touched her private parts. After coming to know this fact, the complainant disclosed this fact to his brother and brother-in-law, who have advised him not to send the child victim to Bhopal.
3.7. Subsequently, daughter of the complainant was called, who came, along with her brother-in-law and the matter was discussed in the presence of the relatives and it was decided that the child victim would stay with her maternal grandparents. However, after the settlement, the daughter of the complainant came along with her brother-
6 2025:HHC:18144 in-law (jeth) and tried to take the child victim forcibly. In order to save the child victim, complainant has moved the complaint.
3.8. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.
3.9. The statement of the child victim was recorded, under Section 161 of CrPC.
3.10. On 27.07.2022, child victim was produced, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, District Una, H.P., where, her statement, under Section 164 of CrPC, was recorded. 3.11. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet, under Section 354(A) of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act, in the learned trial Court, against the accused.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, filed under Section 173(2) of CrPC, as well as, the documents, annexed with it, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused, under Section 354(A) of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act, vide order dated 11.05.2023.
7 2025:HHC:18144 When, the charges were put to accused, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Now, by way of the present petition, petitioner- accused has sought the relief that FIR in question, as well as, the consequential proceedings, may be quashed.
6. The relief of quashing has been sought by the petitioner-accused on the ground that his first wife had expired after giving birth to his son and thereafter, the petitioner was looking for a suitable match, who would take care of his son. The daughter of the complainant, who, as per the stand, taken by the petitioner-accused, was married and having a female child, got divorced from her previous husband.
7. The daughter of the complainant is stated to be highly qualified and she, along with her mother, who is also stated to be a retired Lecturer, started an institute at place 'B' (name withheld). Thereafter, according to the petitioner-accused, he was married with the daughter of respondent No.2 (complainant) on 19.10.2020 and the marriage was registered on 26.10.2020.
8. Thereafter, according to the petitioner-accused, he had adopted the child victim, vide Registered Adoption 8 2025:HHC:18144 Deed dated 26.10.2020, when, she was about six years of age.
9. It has been averred in the petition that after the marriage, his wife, i.e., daughter of respondent No.2, along with the child victim, went to Bhopal, in the company of petitioner-accused, where, they had started living with him happily. The child victim, as well as, the son of the petitioner-accused, who are stated to be of the same age group, became very familiar and affectionate to each other.
10. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that his wife was looking after the institute, but, when, she had joined the matrimonial home at Bhopal with him, then, income from the said institute had reduced drastically.
11. According to the petitioner-accused, respondent No.2, who is the complainant, is always after the money and in order to meet his greed, he can go to any extent. Elaborating these facts, petitioner-accused has pleaded that the complainant, in order to achieve his object of making money, invented a device to take away the child victim from the custody of her mother on the pretext that schools are closed and let, the child victim to live with him for few days.
9 2025:HHC:18144
12. Petitioner-accused has further pleaded that from October, 2020 to December, 2021, there was no complaint against him. But, in the month of February, wife of the petitioner-accused/daughter of respondent No.2 requested respondent No.2 to send back the child victim to Bhopal, as, schools are reopened, but, respondent No.2 deliberately did not send her back, in order to meet his greed for money, by compelling the wife of the petitioner- accused to run the institute. However, according to the petitioner-accused, respondent No.2 could not succeed in his mission.
13. According to the petitioner-accused, in the month of May, wife of the petitioner had gone to the house of respondent No.2 to take the child victim back to Bhopal, but, she was not allowed to enter in the house and was scolded and rebuked by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner-accused made efforts to settle the dispute with the intervention of the elders of the family, but, respondent No.2 had not permitted her to enter in his house.
14. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused that respondent No.2 proclaimed that he could get them 10 2025:HHC:18144 imprisoned and the petitioner-accused, as well as, his wife, would be framed in a false case, under the POCSO Act.
15. It has further been averred in the petition that subsequently, the wife of the petitioner-accused had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, before this Court, which was registered as Criminal Writ Petition No.2/2022 and thereafter, respondent No.2 had made a false complaint in retaliation to the said Habeas Corpus Petition. The said complaint was filed, before the police, on 24.05.2022. During the enquiry of the said complaint, the wife of the petitioner-accused and respondent No.2 had levelled allegations and counter-allegations against each other. The said Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of, by this Court, vide order dated 30.05.2022, by observing that the wife of the petitioner-accused, being mother and natural guardian, was entitled and had a preferential and first right for the custody of minor child. However, in the said order, it was observed that the custody of the minor child shall remain with the maternal grandparents, subject to any other order that may be passed by a competent Court of jurisdiction.
11 2025:HHC:18144
16. The FIR against the petitioner-accused has been assailed on the ground that bare reading of the same does not make out a case against him. Highlighting the statement of the child victim, it has been pleaded that no case of sexual harassment is made out against the petitioner-accused.
17. To buttress his contention, the petitioner- accused has pleaded that the police has recorded DDR No.23 dated 31.05.2022 with Women Police Station, Una, mentioning therein, the on the statement of the child victim, no offence is made out. Along with the petition, statement of the child victim, recorded on 31.05.2022, has also been annexed.
18. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused that prior to recording the rapat on 31.05.2022, Counsellor, District Child Protection Unit, Una (DCPU), has prepared a report, in which, respondent No.2, his wife and two others had signed and the same was counter-signed by the DCPO, Una.
18.1. In the said report, factual position has been recorded that the child victim does not want to go with her mother and expressed her intention to reside with her 12 2025:HHC:18144 maternal grandparents. In this report, it has been mentioned that the child victim disclosed that her father (accused) has touched her private parts and this fact was disclosed by the child victim to her mother, upon which, her mother had tried to make her understand by saying that the same will not be repeated again.
19. The petitioner-accused has also relied upon the counselling report, dated 16.06.2022, asserting the fact that no case under the POCSO Act was found to have been made out.
19.1. All these facts have been highlighted to show that the entire story against the petitioner-accused has been cooked up by respondent No.2 in order to achieve his motive to disturb the married life of his daughter (wife of the petitioner-accused). In this regard, the petitioner- accused has put forward the defence that the real cause for lodging the complaint, against him, was the fact that a residential plot was purchased in the name of the wife of the petitioner-accused by respondent No.2 and he had demanded either to pay the price of the plot or to re- transfer the same to him.
13 2025:HHC:18144
20. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused that on 19.02.2022, a compromise was entered into between respondent No.2, his wife on the one side and on the other side, wife of the petitioner-accused, in which, respondent No.2 has admitted about the factum regarding the marriage of his daughter with petitioner-accused in October, 2020 and after some time, certain differences arose, between the two, which resulted into civil and criminal litigations. Copy of the said compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-10.
21. The said compromise is stated to have been executed, between the parties, on 19.09.2022. According to the petitioner-accused, on that day, two compromises had taken place, between the parties.
22. It is the further case of the petitioner-accused that in view of the compromise, Annexure P-11, it has been agreed to get FIR No.19/2022 dated 26.07.2022, quashed.
23. On the basis of the said compromise, CrMMO No.934/2022 was filed, before this Court. In the said petition, respondent No.2, along with the child victim, had appeared and thereafter, this Court interacted with respondent No.2 and advised him to let live the petitioner-
14 2025:HHC:18144 accused and his wife, with the child, peacefully and the matter was adjourned for 02.11.2022. On that day, due to the non-appearance, on behalf of respondent No.2, the said petition was dismissed, being infructuous. 23.1. All these facts have facts have been highlighted to show that the intention of respondent No.2 was mala fide and for the reasons, as stated in the petition, and on the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto.
24. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their separate replies.
25. In the reply, filed by respondent No.1, the prayer, as made by the petitioner-accused, has been opposed, on the ground that on the complaint of respondent No.2, FIR No.19/2022 dated 26.07.2022 was registered against the petitioner-accused. Thereafter, the statement of the child victim was got recorded by producing her before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Una, under Section 164 of CrPC and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the 15 2025:HHC:18144 petitioner-accused, under Section 354(A) of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act, in the competent Court of law. 25.1. Contents of para No.12, with regard to the proceedings, before the Counsellor, have not been disputed, but, according to respondent No.1, the child victim has levelled the specific allegations against the petitioner-accused, in her statement, under Section 164 of CrPC.
25.2. The prayer has also been objected to on the ground that the defence of the petitioner-accused is not liable to be considered, at this stage.
26. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
27. Respondent No.2 has also filed the reply, in this case, by taking the preliminary objection that a futile attempt has been made by the petitioner-accused to give a shape of civil dispute to the present matter by mentioning wrong facts in the petition, whereas, in the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, a sensitive matter has made out.
27.1. On merits, it has been pleaded that respondent No.2 made a complaint to the police on 24.05.2022, with 16 2025:HHC:18144 regard to the unfortunate incident, but, the petitioner- accused, who happens to be a very influential person, as well as, well-connected person had been managing to hush up the matter. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had written letters to various higher authorities and subsequently, FIR in question was registered.
27.2. In this regard, respondent No.2 has relied upon the copies of the representations, which have been annexed with the reply, as Annexure R-1 (colly). The history of litigation, between the parties, has not been disputed and it has been prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.
28. The petitioner-accused has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of FIR in question, as well as, the consequential proceedings, which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court.
29. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the year 1992, in the case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, reported as 1992 CrLJ, 527, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 17 2025:HHC:18144 formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
"107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate with the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FLR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only. a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
18 2025:HHC:18144 is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
30. This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under:
"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the 19 2025:HHC:18144 exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to 20 2025:HHC:18144 produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.....
21 2025:HHC:18144
8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should 22 2025:HHC:18144 be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding."
31. It is no longer res integra that at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court cannot assume the powers of the appellate/revisional Court, nor, this Court can act as trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Another versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, reported as (2019) 10 SCALE 239. Relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-
"15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it 23 2025:HHC:18144 were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
32. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar & Others versus State of Bihar & Another, reported as (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241.
33. Record perused.
34. In this background, now, this Court will proceed further to determine, as to whether the petitioner- accused is able to make out a case for exercising the powers, under Section 482 of CrPC, by this Court, or not.
35. The petitioner-accused has annexed the following documents with the petition, which are required to be discussed, in order to decide the stand of the petitioner-accused:-
i. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the Criminal Writ Petition, filed by the wife of the petitioner- accused, against the State, SP, Una, as well as, against respondent No.2.
24 2025:HHC:18144 ii. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the complaint, moved by respondent No.2, to the police on 24.05.2022.
iii. Annexure P-3 is the complaint, made by the wife of the petitioner-accused on 26.05.2022. iv. Annexure P-4 is the statement of respondent No.2.
v. Annexure P-5 is the statement of the child victim, recorded on 31.05.2022.
vi. Annexure P-6 is the copy of the General Diary Details, recorded by the police, on the basis of the statement of the child victim (Annexure P-
5).
vii. Annexure P-7 is the report, made by the Counsellor, DCPU, Una.
viii. Annexure P-8 is the counseling report. ix. Annexure P-9 is the statement of Ms. Rekha Sharma, Chairperson, DCPU and statement of Ms. Manorma Lakhan Pal, Member of DCPU, Una.
x. Annexures P-10 & P-11 are the compromises, which allegedly have taken place, between the parties on 19.09.2022.
36. As stated above, respondent No.2 has also filed the reply and annexed the following documents therewith:-
i. Annexure R-1 is the complaint, made by respondent No.2 to DIG against SI Suman 25 2025:HHC:18144 Sharma for not registering the FIR, under POCSO Act.
ii. Copy of the complaint to SP, Una, has also been annexed. In this document, the complaint was made against SHO, Women Police Station, Una.
iii. Annexure R-5 is the copy of the status report, filed before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, in case FIR No.36/2022, dated 28.12.2022, registered under Section 354 of IPC with Women Police Station, Una, against respondent No.2, by his daughter (wife of the petitioner-accused).
37. The present is a classic case of complex human relationships, where, the parties to the proceedings are not the strangers, but, real daughter on the one side and father on the other.
38. From the documents, annexed with the file, the chequered history of the case is also demonstrated, as, the wife of the petitioner-accused had lodged the case, under Section 354 of IPC against her father (respondent No.2), on 28.12.2022, after the registration of the FIR in question, which was registered on 26.07.2022.
26 2025:HHC:18144
39. The documents, heavily relied upon by the petitioner-accused, i.e. Annexures P-1, P-2, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-9, are, although, not the part of the charge sheet filed by the police, under Section 173 (2) of CrPC, against the petitioner-accused, before the learned trial Court, but, these documents have been annexed by the complainant- respondent No. 2, with the complaint filed against the petitioner-accused, his wife and SI Sunita Sharma, who, at the relevant time, was posted at Women Police Station, Una.
40. By way of the said complaint, allegations have been levelled against the police, as well as, against the petitioner-accused and his wife. In such situation, when, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR i.e. respondent No.2, has raised the question, with regard to the authencity of those documents by levelling the allegations against SI Suman Sharma and Ms. Rekha Sharma, Chairperson, DCPU, who had allegedly counter-signed the statement of child victim, on 31.05.2022, then, the documents, which have been relied upon by the petitioner-accused, in the present 27 2025:HHC:18144 proceedings, cannot be said to be the admitted documents or the documents, veracity of which is not under challenge.
41. In the given circumstances, when the veracity/authencity of the documents has been challenged by the complainant-respondent No. 2, then, conducting inquiry here, that too, under Section 482 CrPC, would be nothing, but would amount to mini-trial, which is prohibited under the law. These documents, although, may have relevance for the dispute, involved in the present case, but, once they are under challenge, then, an opportunity has to be given to the complainant, as well as, accused to rebut/prove those documents.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 'Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh and Others', reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399, has cautioned the High Courts not to conduct mini trial, while exercising the powers, under Section 482 of CrPC. Relevant paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:-
"5. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise of 28 2025:HHC:18144 the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.
7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
8. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at 29 2025:HHC:18144 the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried."
43. Considering the case of the petitioner-accused, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, the child victim, in this case, was produced, before the Court, where, her statement, under Section 164 of CrPC, was recorded on 26.07.2022. In the said statement, the child victim has made allegations against the petitioner-accused, for which, the prosecution is entitled to adduce the evidence in order to prove the same, against him.
44. So far as the case laws, relied upon by the petitioner i.e. 'Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr.', reported in 2017 (13) SCC 369, 'Iqbal @Bala & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.', reported in 2023 (8) SCC 734, 'Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.', Neutral Citation No.2023 INSC 684, 'Mohammad Wajid & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors.', reported in AIR 2023 (SC) 3784, 'Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi', reported in 2013 (9) SCC 293, 'Khakashan Kausar @Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.', reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599 and 30 2025:HHC:18144 'Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2019 (11) SC 706, are concerned, with due respect to the laws, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as, there is nothing on record to demonstrate, at this stage, that the criminal proceedings, initiated against the petitioner-accused, are mala fide and as such, falls within the definition of 'abuse of the process of law'. Hence, no benefit could be derived from the above case laws, by the petitioner-accused.
45. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, there is no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer, so made in the petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
46. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as, these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present petition.
47. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
31 2025:HHC:18144
48. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.
( Virender Singh ) Judge June 06, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)