Reeta Hingmang v. State of HP and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. :

of 202

Reserved

on  :   24.09.2025 Decided on

:   23.12.2025 Reeta Hingmang

…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1   Yes For the petitioners  : Mr. Mridul Nag, Advocate (through video conferencing) and Ms. Aanchal Harish, Advocate. For the respondent  : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Varun Chandel,

Additional

Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner Reeta Hingmang has filed the present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for   quashing   of   FIR   No.93   of   2024,   dated   27.05.2024, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question) registered, under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   IPC'),   with   Police   Station Shimla   West,   District   Shimla,   H.P.,  as   well   as,   the proceedings resultant thereto.

¶2According to the petitioner, she had lodged FIR No.87 of 2024, dated 22.05.2024, against respondent No.2, qua his alleged act of misbehaviour, physical assault, use of criminal   force   with   intent   to   disrobe   the   petitioner   and attempt   to   outrage   her   modesty,   constituting   cognizable offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC.

¶3Petitioner has also reiterated the contents of FIR No.87 of 2024 and according to her, since, the matter was reported to Police Station Shimla West, by her, as such, the FIR, in question, has been got registered against her, by respondent No.2, as a counter blast  thereto.  Respondent No.2   has   lodged   FIR   No.93   of   2024,   on   27.5.2024,   in collusion and connivance with one Bhupender Kalsaik and his wife, who, as per the petitioners, are her immediate neighbours and having land dispute with her father.

¶4According   to   the   petitioner,   respondent   No.2, has lodged FIR No.93 of 2024,  maliciously and falsely, as a counter   blast   to   the   FIR,   in   question,   lodged   by   the petitioner. FIR No.93 of 2024, dated 27.05.2025, is also the result   of   abetment   made   by   Bhupinder   Kalsaik,   who   is working as PSO in the Department of Language, Art and Culture   and   is   having   influence   within   the   police department.

¶5In addition to this, it has also been pleaded that bare reading of FIR No. 87 of 2024, does not disclose any offence and the same has been lodged with mala fide intent. In addition to this, the said FIR is also stated to be lodged with the intent to arm­twist and coerce the petitioner.  The said FIR is also stated to be lodged after six days from the alleged incident and no explanation has been given in the FIR, in question.

¶6On the basis of the above facts, the following substantive relief has been sought:­

(i) Quash FIR No.0093 of 2024, dated 27.05.2024, registered   at   Police   Station   Boileauganj   West Shimla,   District   Shimla,   H.P.,   under   Sections 341,   504   and   506   of   IPC,   along   with   all consequential proceedings arising therefrom;

(ii) Pass   any   other   or   further   orders   as   may   be deemed   just   and   proper   in   the   interest   of justice."

¶7When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has filed   the   status   report,   disclosing   therein,   that   on

27.05.2024,   respondent   No.2,   Rajinder   Singh   Thakur, moved a complaint, disclosing therein, that he is resident of Chamrog,   Post  Taradevi,   Tehsil   and   District   Shimla.   On

21.05.2024, at about 9.30 p.m., when, he was on the way to his home, from his shop, near the house of Madan Singh Thakur, Rita Hingmang (petitioner) and other residents of Amrita Niwas, had restrained him to proceed further and given beatings to him with fist and kicks blow.  When, the complainant prevented them to do so, then, they abused him   and   threatened   him   to   eliminate.     House   of   Rita Hingmang (petitioner) is stated to be situated about 100 meters away from the house of the complainant and she used to quarrel with him.  The said incident was witnessed by Madan Singh Thakur, Surender Singh Thakur and other persons.  Incident was also recorded in the CCTV.  Due to the death of his father­in­law, he could not make the report and on 27.05.2024, when he was on his way to his shop, then petitioner Rita Hingmang stared him and abused him, as such, he has requested that case be lodged against her and he does not want to get himself medically examined.

¶8On the basis of the above facts, the police of Police Station Shimla West, registered the FIR, in question and investigation was entrusted to  LHC Rekha No.113 and thereafter to SI Randheer Singh.

¶9On 14.06.2024, at the instance of complainant Rajinder Singh Thakur, spot was visited and spot map was prepared.     Statements   of   the   witnesses   were   recorded, under Section 161 Cr.PC.  On the basis of the statements of the witnesses, the involvement of any other person was not found, as such, Section 34 of the IPC was deleted.

¶10On   12.08.2024,   the   CCTV   footage   of

21.05.2024, from 9.31 p.m. to 09.43 p.m., was downloaded and was taken into possession by keeping the same in the DVD.   On 28.07.2024, the petitioner was associated and was arrested.

¶11During investigation, it has been found that in the year  1998, complainant Rajinder Singh Thakur, has sold four biswa of land to the father of the petitioner, and her father has constructed a five storeyed house over it, in the   year   2002   and   in   that   process,   he   has   allegedly encroached   upon   the   land   of   Rajinder   Singh   Thakur, therefore, there is a land dispute between them.  Only son of Rajinder was murdered, as such, he remained distress and sometimes consumes liquor.

¶12On 21.05.2025, at about 7.30 p.m., the father of the petitioner had a fall and sustained injuries on his foot and the petitioner took her father to DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla in her vehicle.  When the petitioner, along with her father returned back from DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla, at about 9.30 p.m., when reached 100 meters away from her house,   then,   at   Chamrog   bazar,   the   complainant,   after closing his shop, under the influence of liquor, was found coming back to his home, by taking lift in someone's vehicle. When, the vehicles of both petitioner and respondent No.2, reached nearer to each other, then, due to the old dispute, complainant Rajinder Singh Thakur uttered the words  'O Gorkhe Kahan Ja Raha Hai', due to which, a quarrel had taken  place  between   the  petitioner  and  the  complainant and   the   petitioner   lodged   FIR   No.   87   of   2024,   dated

22.05.2025, under Section 354, 504, 506, 509, IPC.

¶13It   is   the   further   case   of  the   police   that   after quarrel, Rajinder Singh had gone to his home, however, he was chased by petitioner Rita Hingmang and in front of the house   of   Madan   Singh,   petitioner   restrained   the complainant to proceed further, abused him and threatened him to kill.

¶14As   per   the   CCTV   footage,   on   21.05.2024,   at about 21.34.50, a male voice was recorded, at 21.35.09, a lady   was   found   abusing,   at   21.36.09,   abuses   of complainant,   at   21.36.19,   a   lady   with   resemblance   of petitioner, wearing white clothes, at 21.37.08, the said lady making signs and abusing and on 21.37.49, the said lady was   seen   having   shoe   in   her   hand.     Similarly,   on

21.05.2025, from 21.34. to 21.43 p.m., the complainant, petitioner and other ladies and gents, were found scuffling with each other.

¶15Lastly,   it   has   been   mentioned,   in   the   status report,  that after completion of the investigation,  charge sheet, under Sections 341, 504, 506 IPC was filed, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla.  Petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the charge­sheet.

¶16Petitioner is before this court under Section 528 of the BNSS.  Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS), has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the year 1992, in the lead case reported as 1992 CrLJ, 527, titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal   &   Others,   in   which,   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   has 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 non­cognizable offence, no investigation 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."

¶17This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge   Bench   of   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in  Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315.  Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced as under:­

¶38In   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 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 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   short­circuit   a   prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..

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 hard­and­fast   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 cognizance 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 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."

¶18In view of the guidelines, as laid down, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court would proceed to discuss the   stand,   as   taken   by   the   petitioner,   in   the   present petition.

¶19It 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 appeal/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 apex Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Another versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, (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 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."

¶20Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.W. Palanitkar & Others versus State of Bihar & Another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 241.

¶21At the time of deciding the petition, only prima facie  case   is   to   be   seen   and   the   truthfulness   of   the allegations are not to be seen.  Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in  Rajiv Thapar & Others versus Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC, 330.

¶22One thing is not in dispute, in the present case that qua the incident, which had allegedly been taken place on 21.05.2024, the petitioner has already lodged a case bearing   FIR   No.87   of   2024,   dated   22.05.2024,   under Sections   354,   504,   506   and   509   IPC.     It   seems   that petitioner wants to bring her case within condition No.7, as enumerated,   by   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in  Chaudhary Bhajan Lal's case supra.

¶23In   this   case,   as   per   respondent   No.2 (complainant),  the incident allegedly had taken place on

21.05.2024, however, the matter was reported to the police on 27.05.2024.  He has made a futile attempt to explain the delay in lodging the FIR of the incident, which had allegedly taken   place   on   21.05.2024   and   lodged   on   27.05.2024, however, the vague averments 'since his father­in­law has expired,   he   could   not   made   the   report',   is   too   short   to explain the delay and this explanation is to be seen in the light of the admitted fact that the petitioner had already lodged FIR against him on 21.05.2024, that too, under the heinous offence of outraging the modesty of a woman.

¶24Not only this, respondent No.2 has also made a futile attempt to justify his act by lodging FIR, by deposing that on 27.05.2024, when, he was coming back from his shop, the petitioner had stared him and abused him.   In the absence of any explanation, the said act is too short to prove the ingredients of the offence, for which, the FIR in question has been lodged.

¶25The petitioner, in the present case, has placed on   record   the   copy   of   the   charge   sheet.     As   per   the statement of respondent No.2, recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, he admitted that on 21.05.2024, he has uttered the words 'O Gorkhe Kahan Ja Raha Hai'.

¶26Another point, which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case, is that respondent   No.2   allegedly   made   a   complaint   on

27.05.2024,   whereas,   his   statement   under   Section   161 Cr.PC, was recorded on 14.06.2024, almost after 17 days, from the date of making the complainant and a new version has   been   introduced,   disclosing   therein,   that   petitioner allegedly uttered the words "Accha hua tera ladka mara hai tatha teri ladki banjh hai, tujhe inhin karmon ka fal mila hai'.

¶27Although, the delay in lodging the FIR, is to be explained   by   the   complainant   during   the   trial,   but, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, according to   which,   the   petitioner   had   lodged   a   case   against respondent No.2, on 21.05.2024, under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 IPC, lodging the FIR, after six days, is nothing, but, the result of deliberations with the witnesses. Prompt lodging of FIR, rules out the deliberations, as such, the delay in lodging the FIR, in the present case, is fatal for the case of respondent No.2.

¶28In   view   of   the   above   admitted   fact,   the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, hold water that the present FIR is nothing, but counter blast to the FIR, lodged against respondent No.2, by the petitioner.

¶29Respondent No.2 has not mentioned the date of death of his father­in­law and also not made any efforts to explain   the   reason   for   lodging   the   FIR,   after   six   days. Although, a futile attempt has been made in the statement under   Section   154   Cr.PC,   when   he   deposed   that   on

27.05.2024, when, he was on his way to his house, then petitioner   Rita   Hingmang   stared   him   and   abused   him, however, the same appears to be a futile attempt to bring his complaint within the definition of prompt lodging of the case.  Learned counsel for respondent No.2, could not point out as to how the ingredients of Sections 341, 504 and 506 IPC are made out from the FIR, as well as, the investigation conducted by the Police.

¶30When respondent No.2, is also facing trial in a case registered under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 IPC, then, the present proceedings would be nothing, but abuse of process of law and the same comes under the purview of guideline No.7, as enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaudhary Bhajan Lal's case (supra)

¶31In   view   of   the   discussion   made   above,   this Court is of the view that it is a fit case, where, the FIR, in question,   as  well   as,   the  resultant   proceedings,  pending before the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed, by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶32Consequently,   the   present   petition   is   allowed and the FIR No.93 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024, registered under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, with Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, are ordered to be quashed.

¶33Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

( Virender Singh ) Judge December 23, 2025 (ps)