CRMMO/799/2026 on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 799 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.10.2026 Date of Decision: 16.10.2026. Rohit Sharma & ors. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Ms

Suman

Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 35 of 2021, dated 29.12.2021, registered at Women Police Station, District Una, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It was mentioned in para-14 of the petition that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, District Una, had framed the charges against the accused on 17.1.2023. The copies of the order sheets have also been filed along with the petition in support of this averment. Since the maintainability of the petition under Section 528 was doubtful after the framing of the charges, the parties were heard on the question of maintainability.

3. Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petition is maintainable even after the framing of the charges. The petitioner has approached this Court to quash the FIR on the ground that no cognizable offence is disclosed, and the framing of charges does not bar such petition. Hence, she prayed that the matter be heard on merits. She relied upon the following judgments in support of her submissions: -

(i) Mukesh & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 12354 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024;

(ii) Sanjit Madhu Vs. State 2026:CHC:78;

(iii) Rasabihari Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha, Cr. LMC No. 4491 of 2025;

(iv) Ravi Kumar Vs. State of HP & Anr. Cr.MMO Nos. 335 of 2018;

4. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1–State, submitted that the petitioner had a remedy of challenging the order framing the charges; however, she failed to do so, and she cannot circumvent the law by filing the petition for quashing the FIR. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. I have considered the rival contentions made at the Bar and have gone through the record carefully.

6. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181 that once the Competent Court has framed the charges, the person aggrieved may invoke the revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., except in rare cases. It was observed on page 145: “7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out — as has been done in the instant case — the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 CrPC and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court, if so satisfied, can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add, even in such exceptional cases, the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. This Court also held in Reena Devi vs State of H.P. (2019) 3 SimLC 1773 that a petition cannot be filed under Section 482 of CrPC after the charges have been framed or notice of accusation has been put. It was observed: “9. Before arriving at any conclusion to ascertain the appropriate remedy for an accused, against whom a notice of accusation has been issued, or the charge has been framed, and who wants to challenge the same, the tour of the following stages will give the required exposure. Stage-1 The most prominent and the earliest provision, which ignites the engine of criminal law and brings it into motion, is the registration of FIR, under Section 154 of the CrPC. Needless to say, this provision confines itself to cognizable offences. After the investigation, if, in the opinion of the Station House Officer, a case for the prosecution is made out, then he files a report under Section 173 of the CrPC. Any person arraigned as an accused in such an FIR can seek its quashing from the High Court having jurisdiction, by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

Stage-2 Section 190 of the CrPC envisages three situations, upon which the Magistrate can take cognisance of an offence, namely, (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) Upon a Police Report of such facts; (c) Upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer or upon his own knowledge that such an offence has been committed. Exercising powers under Section 204 of CrPC, the Magistrate, taking cognisance of offences, may proceed against an accused if he believes in the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. Any person who has been arraigned as an accused and is aggrieved either by registration of FIR, filing of charge-sheet, taking cognisance, or issuance of the process can seek adjudication under Section 482 of the CrPC. An order taking cognisance can also be challenged by filing a revision petition in the Sessions Court or High Court. There will be a situation where, after the filing of the petition for quashing of FIR, in the meantime, the charge-sheet is filed; the law is no more res Integra that in all those cases, FIR and all consequential proceedings can be quashed. An accused cannot approach a Sessions Court till this stage because the only available statutory remedy is by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. Stage-3 The next stage in criminal proceedings is similar to the transformation of a caterpillar emerging as a butterfly, and it begins on the framing of charges under Sections 211 and 228 of the CrPC or on the issuance of notice of accusation under Section 251 of the CrPC. If not challenged, it shall culminate under Section 229, 241 or 248 of the CrPC only by a judgment of acquittal or conviction. Once charges stand framed or the notice of accusation stands issued, as the case may be, then the appropriate remedy to challenge the same is only by filing a

Criminal Revision Petition in the Court where it lies and not by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Stage 4: The next stage is post-conviction or acquittal. A judgment of conviction can only be challenged under Chapter-29 of the CrPC (Sections 372 to 394). During the pendency of such an appeal, the parties may file an application for compounding of the offences, but such applications in appeal would be within, not without. A convict cannot bypass Chapter 29 and, instead of filing a statutory appeal before the First Appellate Court, cannot straightaway resort to Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the CrPC. Stage-5 The next stage is challenging the dismissal of the appeals of the convicts, and that can be done by approaching the Courts under their revisionary jurisdiction, under sections 397-401 CrPC. During the pendency of such Revision Petitions, if parties compound the offences, then the process is similar to that in the appeals.

10. The other stages, if any, would also tread a similar path and cross similar obstacles.

11. The above survey leads to an irresistible conclusion that once charges have been framed, then the remedy is not to file a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC but to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC……”

8. A similar view was taken in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2025 SCC Online HP 6561, wherein it was observed:

13. Note submitted by the petitioner mentions that out of forty witnesses, seventeen witnesses have been examined. The charge-sheet was filed on 22.12.2023, and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 30.08.2024. There is nothing in the petition as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after the lapse of two years from the date of filing of the charge-sheet. The petition is also silent as to why the order of framing charge was not challenged by the petitioner and why the prosecution was permitted to examine the prosecution's witnesses. The jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was laid down by the Delhi High Court in Sanyam Bhushan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4545, that the Court should not entertain the belated petitions for quashing the FIR. It was observed: “43. At the outset, I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Complainant that the present set of petitions is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as also for the failure of the petitioners to avail of their alternate efficacious remedy in the form of Revision Petitions under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C.

44. It need not be emphasised that powers under Section 482 of the CrPC are discretionary in nature, and though there may not be a total ban on the exercise of such power where the situation so warrants, at the same time, there are limitations of self-restraint that are recognised and followed by the Courts in exercising this jurisdiction. One such limitation is where the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy; however, they did not avail of the same within the period of limitation and thereafter filed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to overcome the objection of limitation. Similarly, the Courts have refused to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., where it is filed with unexplained delay and laches and in the meantime, the trial has proceeded.”

14. In the present case, the petitioner has a remedy of challenging the order framing charge, but he did not do so within the limitation. He filed the present petition to circumvent the period of limitation prescribed for challenging the order of framing the charges.

15. It was laid down in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181 that once the Competent Court has framed the charges, the aggrieved person may invoke the revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., except in rare cases. It was observed on page 145:— “7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out — as has been done in the instant case — the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 CrPC and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court, if so satisfied, can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add that even in such exceptional cases, the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)

16. In the present case, the trial has sufficiently progressed. Statements of seventeen witnesses have been recorded. Since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, this Court declines to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and relegates the petitioner to avail the remedies in the ongoing trial. It is not necessary to discuss the judgments cited at Bar and to comment whether the F.I.R. and subsequent proceedings disclose the commission of an offence or not.

9. Therefore, in view of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the petitioner had a remedy of assailing the order framing the charges. However, once she had allowed the order to attain finality by the lapse of time, it is impermissible to file a petition for quashing the FIR, ignoring the order passed by the competent Court.

10. In Mukesh (supra) and Ravi Kumar (supra), it was held that the jurisdiction to quash the FIR is not taken away merely by filing of the charge sheet. In the present case, not only has the charge sheet been filed, but the charges have been framed. In Rasabihari Mohanty (supra), the petition was filed on the ground that there was a delay in the progress of the trial, which is not the case here. This Court is bound by the judgment of the co- ordinate benches of this Court and cannot follow Sanjit Madhu(supra). Therefore, the cited judgments do not apply to the present case.

11. In view of the above, the present petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as not maintainable.

12. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th October, 2026 (Chander)