Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On 20.11.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:41132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4695 of 2023
.
Reserved on 20.11.2025
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Anita Sood
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with
rt
For the respondents:
Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate.
Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for the State.
Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate, for respondent
No.3.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner is that though complaint dated 30.3.2022 (Annexure P-12), submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Dharamshala, (in short "Superintendent of Police"), discloses cognizable offence alleged to be committed by ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:41132 respondent No.4, but yet afore authority failed to lodge FIR at the first .
instance, which act of him, is in complete violation of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1.
2. Explicitly, facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the of respective parties are that an entity named M/s Jagriti Public Educational Society ( in short "Jagriti Society"), applied for Kandi, rt Small Hydel Electric Project (SHEP) in the elevation range of Weir site at 1600m and power House at 1500m on Binwa Khad Stream of Beas basin in Kangra District, vide request letter dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure P-1), addressed to Director HIMURJA, Himachal Pradesh, through petitioner namely Anita Sood. Respondent No.4 also applied for grant of Small Hydel Electric Project to Director HIMURJA under self identified scheme. Since originally applied for elevation by respondent No.4 was found to be overlapping with the elevation range of the petitioner coupled with the fact that respondent No.4 had applied for elevation in question prior in time, respondent No.4 brought the issue to the notice of Director, HIMURJA, who convened meeting in his office on 9.4.2010, regarding review of allotted elevations of Small Hydel Electric Projects of Binwa Khad. Said meeting was allegedly attended by respondent No.4 as well as petitioner alongwith representatives of HIMURJA Department.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS-3- 2025:HHC:41132 Allegedly, based upon the discussion held in the afore meeting, .
petitioner made a written representation on behalf of Jagriti Society on 29.4.2010, offering no objection for change of elevation and for grant of another project of the same capacity in the changed elevation.
Allegedly, another representation dated 17.7.2010 was made by the petitioner on behalf of the Jagriti Society, stating therein that of pursuant to discussion held in the office of Director, HIMURJA, a joint inspection was conducted at the site for allotment of the project with rt changed elevations. Jagriti Society agreed for grant of project with changed elevation. On the basis of said representation made by Jagriti Society, site in question was again visited at 31.7.2010.
Respondent-department after having accepted the representation of the petitioner allotted the project to the Jagriti Society in the year 2010 with changed elevation. Since despite there being repeated notices, afore society failed to utilize the site, project could not be implemented and respondent department issued cancellation order dated 23.7.2015, as a result thereof, consent letter issued to Jagriti Society on 26.7.2009, was withdrawn. Admittedly, no challenge was ever made by the Society or the petitioner to any of the orders, decisions and directions issued by the department at the relevant time, thereby cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner.
3. To the contrary, respondent No.4 duly executed the project at the given site and same is functional for last so many years.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS-4- 2025:HHC:41132 After expiry of almost 12 years, petitioner made a complaint dated .
30.3.2022 to Superintendent of Police, requesting therein to take action against respondent No.4 Ms. Shibani Butail, for forging the signatures of the petitioner as representative of the Jagritiy Society.
4. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid complaint, submitted by the petitioner, Superintendent of Police sent a communication of dated 7.4.2022 to Director, HIMURJA, enclosing therewith complaint received from the petitioner, who further with a view to ascertain the rt correctness and veracity of the allegations contained in the complaint, as detailed herein above, sent communication to respondent No.5-Mr. Dhruv Singh Chandel, with the request to furnish detailed report on the complaint lodged by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, regarding her presence shown on the Joint Inspection conducted under his supervision on 31.7.2010.
5. Vide communication dated 2.6.2022, respondent No.5 apprised the Project Director cum Deputy Chief Executive Officer HIMURJA, Shimla that Joint Inspection of Binwa-IV SHEP was conducted on 31.7.2010 in the presence of both the parties and after Joint Inspection, proceedings have been signed by authorized signatories.
6. Vide communication dated 16.7.2022, Project Director apprised Superintendent of Police that respondent No.5, who had conducted inspection in presence of parties, has clarified that during ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:41132 joint inspection of projects namely Binwa-IV and Kandi Small Hydel .
Electric Project, both the parties were present and Joint Inspection Report was signed by authorized signatories of the Firms.
7. Petitioner again submitted a complaint dated 3.9.2022 to the Superintendent of Police and afore authority vide letter dated 22.9.2022 apprised the petitioner that complaint has already been of transferred to Director HIMURJA, Shimla, for further necessary action (Annexure P16). In the afore background, petitioner has approached rt this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:
"1. Direct the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharamshala to lodge an First Information Report under sections 465, 468,471, 416, 420, 34 and section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, using as genuine a forged document, cheating, Criminal Conspiracy against the respondent no 4 Mrs. Shibani Butail and respondent no 5 Mr. Dhruv Singh Chandel.
II. Direct the Director HIMURJA to conduct a time bound enquiry into the act of forgery by its Project Director, respondent no 5 as well as other officials /staff present for conducting Joint inspection on 31.07.2010 just to benefit respondent no 4 Shibani Butail and initiate action at departmental level against the erring officials."
8. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that once complaint submitted by the petitioner to Superintendent of Police, clearly disclosed cognizable offence punishable under Section 464 of IPC ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:41132 (Section 335 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), there was no .
occasion, if any, for afore authority to call for comment from the Respondent-HIMURJA Department, rather in terms of Lalita Kumari (supra), FIR should have been registered against respondent No.4 as well as other erring officials of the respondent-HIMURJA Department.
9. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Senior counsel appearing of for the petitioner, vehemently argued that an attempt has been made by the respondents including Superintendent of Police to hush up the rt matter because respondent No.4, who allegedly forged letter dated 29.4.2010 is an influential person. Mr. Maniktala, invited attention of this Court to various documents adduced on record especially Annexure P-A i.e. opinion given by Questioned Document Writer to demonstrate that signatures appended upon communication dated 29.4.2010 as well as minutes of meeting allegedly held in the presence of respondent No.5 are not of the petitioner Anita Sood, but yet Superintendent of Police did not lodge FIR and merely, shifted the buck to respondent department, which otherwise is hand in glove with respondent No.4. He submitted that factum with regard to change of elevation on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner vide communication dated 29.4.2010 came to the notice of the petitioner in the year 2019, whereafter she, at the first instance, complained to respondent department, but once no action was initiated against respondents No. 4 and 5, she lodged complaint dated 30.3.2022 with ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:41132 Superintendent of Police with request to lodge FIR against respondent .
No.4 as well as other persons, who are involved in the case, but in vain.
10. While inviting attention of this Court of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (supra), Mr. Maniktala, strenuously argued that police officer is bound to register FIR upon of receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence.
11. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional rt Advocate General, Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2, Naresh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Ms. Reeta Hingmang, appearing for respondent No.5, vehemently argued that bare perusal of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case, nowhere suggests that in every case, police officer is bound to lodge FIR, rather in some of the cases, he with a view to test the veracity of allegations leveled in the complaint, can also conduct preliminary enquiry. Above named counsel further argued that in Lalita Kumari (supra), it has been categorically held that though registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation, but cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over three months delay in reporting the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:41132 matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay, .
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. They submitted that in the case at hand, on the basis alleged undertaking given by the petitioner vide communication dated 29.4.2010, elevation of the project allotted in favour of the petitioner was changed and thereafter, consent letter was also issued, but for no cogent and convincing reasons, petitioner of kept mum for more than 12 years. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that though it is apparent from record that rt elevation on the basis of alleged representation dated 29.4.2010, was changed in the year 2010, but even if it is presumed that factum with regard to forging of aforesaid document was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the relevant time, there is no explanation that why petitioner kept mum after the year 2015 when project allotted in favour of the Jagriti Society was cancelled. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it is only after cancellation of project allotted in favour of M/s Jagriti Society, petitioner with a view to harass respondent No.4 as well as official of respondents No. 4 and 5 concocted a false story and lodged complaint after inordinate delay of 12 years, which otherwise could not have been straightaway entertained in terms of mandate contained in Lalita Kumari's case (supra).
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS -9- 2025:HHC:41132
13. Before ascertaining the correctness of rival
.
claims/submissions made by the parties to lis, it is apt to take note of the fact that this court, at the first instance, having regard to the nature of dispute coupled with the fact that two complaints dated 3.3.2022 and 3.9.2022 lodged by the petitioner, were pending consideration before respondent No.3, disposed of the petition vide of judgment dated 11.8.2023, thereby directing respondent No.3 to consider and decide the aforesaid complaints made by the petitioner in rt accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 and 5, however after passing of aforesaid judgment, respondent No.4 filed an application bearing CMP No. 10734 of 2023 for recalling of order dated 11.8.2023, in as much as same was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant/respondent No.4.
14. This Court vide order dated 14.9.2023, having taken note of the fact that afore respondents were not heard at the time of passing of order dated 11.8.2023, recalled order dated 11.8.2023 and directed the Registry to restore the writ petition to its original number. In the afore background petition, has been listed before this Court for fresh hearing.
15. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that she, at no point of time, had submitted letter dated 29.4.2010, thereby conveying no objection at the behest of Jagriti Society for change of elevation. It is ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:41132 also case of the petitioner that neither meeting was convened on .
19.4.2010, between the parties nor petitioner ever remained present during the alleged site inspection conducted by respondent No.5 on 31.7.2010.
16. It also clearly emerges from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that Jagriti Society originally had of applied for Kandi Small Hydel Electric Project 0.6 MW at District Kangra to M/s Jagriti Society in the year 2010 through petitioner.
rt Since elevation of the aforesaid project was found to be overlapping with the project already allotted in favour of respondent No.4, meeting was convened in the office of Director HIMURJA on 19.4.2010, wherein petitioner as well as respondent No.4 remained present. Allegedly, in the afore meeting M/s Anita Sood, representative of Jagriti Society agreed for change of elevation. Allegedly, on 31.7.2010, site was visited by the parties in the presence of respondent No.5 and thereafter, site with new elevation was allotted to M/s Jagriti Society.
Though new site with new elevation was allotted in the year 2010, but it is admitted fact that afore entity failed to utilize the new site, as a result thereof, department passed cancellation order on 23.7.2015, as a result thereof, consent letter dated 26.7.2009 issued in favour of the M/s Jagriti Society was withdrawn. Though petitioner herein/ Society never laid challenge to cancellation order dated 23.7.2015, but after inordinate delay of 12 years lodged a complaint dated 30.3.2022 to ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:41132 Superintendent of Police, requesting therein to take action against .
respondent No.4 as well as other officials of the respondent department for their having allegedly forged communication dated 29.4.2010 as well as proceedings of meeting allegedly held on 31.7.2010.
17. Precisely, in the afore complaint made to Superintendent of of Police, petitioner-Anita Sood alleged that her name and presence shown in the Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 are totally rt wrong because neither she came present in the aforesaid alleged Joint Inspection nor she ever appended signatures on the proceedings dated 31.7.2010, wherein she allegedly agreed for change of elevation.
18. Mr. Maniktala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that since precise allegation of forging of signature of the petitioner on the communication dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 was leveled, which is a cognizable offence punishable under Section 464 of IPC (Section 335 of BNS), afore police authority had no option, but to register FIR in terms of mandate contained in Lalita Kumari's case.
19. In the afore background, question, which needs to be answered is that " whether in all cases/situations, police officer after having received complaint disclosing cognizable offence, is bound to register FIR or in exceptional cases, he/she can also conduct preliminary enquiry."
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS- 12 - 2025:HHC:41132
20. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of relevant .
paras of the judgment passed in Lalita Kumari's case (supra):
"119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable of offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable rt offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
Conclusion/Directions:
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1 Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2 If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:41132 inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
.
120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
of 120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. rt 120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:41132 fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
.
120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be of reflected, as mentioned above."
21. Aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly reveals that in case information given to the police rt discloses the commission of cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out on the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately, rather in that situation police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for a limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed or not. Most importantly, in the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
22. While issuing directions, Hon'ble Apex Court in afore case, also carved out situations in which preliminary enquiry is to be conducted i.e. matrimonial disputes/ family disputes, commercial ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:41132 offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and cases where .
there is abnormal delay and laches in criminal prosecution. Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment has held that in case there is delay of more than three months in reporting matter without specifically explaining the reasons for delay, preliminary enquiry is to be conducted before registration of the case.
of
23. Now being guided by aforesaid law laid down by the competent authority, this Court would make an endeavour to find out rt "whether it was mandatory for Superintendent of Police to lodge FIR against respondent No.4 as well as other officials of the department on the basis of complaint dated 30.3.2022 (Annexure P-12), wherein she had alleged that respondent No.4 has forged her signatures on communication dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010"?
24. True, it is that allegation contained in the complaint, as detailed herein above, discloses cognizable offence punishable under Section 464 of IPC (Section 335 of BNS), but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that complaint dated 30.3.2022 qua the incident of year 2010 came to be lodged after an inordinate delay of 12 years.
There is no plausible explanation rendered on record for not lodging complaint at the first instance i.e. in the year 2012 itself.
25. Though Mr. Maniktala, learned Senior Counsel, attempted to argue that factum with regard to issuance of communication dated ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:41132 29.4.2010 as well as forged signature of the petitioner on Joint .
Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 came to the knowledge of the petitioner in the year 2019, but such plea of him cannot be accepted for the reason that after alleged mis-use of communication dated 29.4.2010 as well as Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010, M/s Jagriti Society was allotted project with new site, which it admittedly of failed to utilize, as a result thereof, project allotted in her favour in year 2010 was cancelled in 2015 as has been detailed herein above.
rt Interestingly, at no point of time, afore entity or petitioner ever laid challenge to the cancellation order, rather after seven years of passing of the cancellation order, sent a communication dated 30.3.2022 to the Superintendent of Police, thereby requesting for initiating criminal proceedings against respondent No.4.
26. Though this court having scanned the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the respondents is fully convinced and satisfied that factum with regard to alleged mis-use of communication dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 was in the knowledge of the petitioner in the year 2010 itself, but yet at that stage, she being satisfied with allotment of new site/location kept mum. It is only after issuance of cancellation order dated 23.7.2015 coupled with the fact that respondent No.4, by that time, was able to generate the power from the project allotted in her favour, husband of the petitioner started collecting information under ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:41132 RTI Act, which was otherwise made available to him in the year 2019 .
as per own averments of the petitioner. Since in the year 2019, petitioner had come to know that elevation of site earlier allotted in favour of M/s Jagriti Society was changed on the basis of communication dated 29.4.2010, which was allegedly forged by respondent No.4, it is not understood that what prevented the of petitioner, at that stage, to lodge criminal complaint against respondent No.4 as well as other officials, who allegedly connived with rt respondent No.4 while preparing Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010.
27. In the instant case, Superintendent of Police after having received communication dated 30.3.2022, made a correspondence with the Project Director, HIMURJA, who after having got conducted inquiry from respondent No.5, who was present at the time of Joint Inspection dated 31.7.2010, apprised afore police authority that Joint Inspection was conducted on 31.7.2010 in the presence of both the parties and they had also appended their signatures upon the same.
Besides above, police authority also came to be apprised that during meeting held in the office of Project Director, petitioner had agreed for change of elevation and thereafter, she submitted communication dated 29.4.2010, thereby agreeing for change of site/elevation. Taking note of aforesaid reply filed by the project Director, HIMURJA, no action was taken by the police authorities.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS- 18 - 2025:HHC:41132
28. Though Mr. Maniktala, argued that in the light of report of .
Questioned Document Writer, wherein it came to be opined that signatures upon communication dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 are not of the petitioner, police authority had no option but to straightaway lodge FIR against the petitioner as well as other erring officials under Section 464 of IPC (Section 335 of BNS), of however this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Maniktala, for the reason that report of Questioned Document Writer was rt given/furnished at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner herself gave her admitted signatures to the afore expert, who simply by comparing the same with alleged signatures of the petitioner appended on the allegedly forged documents, opined that same are not of the petitioner.
29. For sending the admitted signatures to Questioned Document Writer, there is a prescribed procedure to be followed by person interested of seeking opinion of Questioned Document Writer.
Competent court of law in the facts and circumstances, of its own, sends alleged forged documents/signatures to the Questioned Document Writer, but before doing so obtains admitted signatures of the party, whose signatures are allegedly forged. In the instant case, aforesaid procedure never came to be followed, rather petitioner herself sent few documents to the Questioned Document Writer alongwith her admitted signatures. Questioned Document Writer, whose report ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:41132 may not be of much relevance as far as instant proceedings are .
concerned, though opined that signatures contained upon communication dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 are not of the petitioner, but at the same time, there is nothing to suggest that signatures upon these documents were appended by the petitioner or other officials of the respondent of department.
30. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the respondents rt further argued that present petition is not maintainable because at the first instance, there was alternate remedy available for the petitioner under Section 156 (3) of CrPC or Section 200 of CPC, where she could either approach Magistrate of the area concerned for lodging FIR or file private complaint under relevant provisions of law, thereby requesting to lodge criminal case against respondent No.4, but having taken note of precise ground raised by the petitioner that in any eventuality, police authorities are under obligation to lodge FIR if complaint discloses cognizable offence, this Court sees no necessity to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
31. Since this court is convinced and satisfied that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint to the competent authority, there appears to be no justification to issue direction to the Superintendent of Police to straightaway lodge FIR against respondent No.4 as well as other officials of the respondent-department for their ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:41132 having allegedly forged signatures of the petitioner on communication .
dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010.
32. Reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 reveals that when complaint is received by the Vigilance Department from any source either from ACU or from AD or directly from the complainant, it may decide whether to entrust the complaint to an officer of the of administrative department for enquiry or of the administrative department for enquiry or to the anti corruption unit for rt enquiry/investigation. In the case at hand, , Superintendent of Police decided to send the complaint to Director HIMURJA Shimla in terms of clause 3.1 of the Vigilance Manual. Once Administrative Department finds correctness in the allegations leveled in the complaint and in turn, reports the matter back to the Vigilance Department, Vigilance Department will take further call whether it is a fit case for lodging criminal case or not. Since in the instant case, no enquiry report was received from HIMURJA, rather simple communication was sent stating therein that signatures appended on communication dated 29.4.2010 and Joint Inspection Report dated 31.7.2010 are of the petitioner, no further action was taken by the Superintendent of Police.
33. Consequently, in view of the above, though this Court finds no fault in the action of the police authorities in as much as they failed to lodge FIR straightaway on the basis of complaint (Annexure P-
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS- 21 - 2025:HHC:41132
12) made by the complainant named herein above and as such, prayer .
made in that regard through instant petition is rejected, however having taken note of the fact that no further action pursuant to report, if any, submitted by the Project Director HIMURJA ever came to be taken at the behest of police authorities, this Court while disposing of the present petition directs that Superintendent of Police to take final of decision upon the report, if any, submitted by the police authorities with regard to alleged forging of documents. In case, there is some rt correctness in the allegations leveled against respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police after having conducted preliminary enquiry may pass appropriate order and in case it is satisfied with the explanation rendered on record by the Project Director HIMURJA, it may proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
34. Though this is a fit case, where petitioner for her having not approached this Court with clean hands, ought to have been burdened with heavy cost, but yet taking lenient view this Court restrains itself from imposing costs, but cautions the petitioner to be careful in future while dealing with court cases.
December 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:44:47 :::CIS