The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, recently dismissed a Criminal Revision filed by the State against an order passed by the Special Judge, Kangra, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Anu Bala and others. The court ruled the revision non-maintainable, emphasizing that the State cannot act as an “aggrieved party” in such matters.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an application filed by respondent Anu Bala under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). She sought action against two police officials under Sections 332(c), 126(2), 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with provisions of the SC & ST Act. The trial court directed the SHO, Police Station Rehan, to investigate the matter, prompting the State to challenge this order through a Criminal Revision.
Read also:- High Court Grants Probation to Petitioners in Punjab Criminal Revision Case
The High Court, led by Justice Virender Singh, observed that crimes are offenses against the State, not just individuals. However, the State cannot file a revision to protect its employees accused of wrongdoing. The court stated:
“Crime is always committed against the State and not against a particular person. The State prosecutes offenders to maintain public order, but it cannot shield its employees from lawful investigation.”
The State relied on a 1971 notification allowing it to represent government officers in court. However, the court clarified that this provision does not override the principle that the State cannot interfere in investigations against its employees unless they seek legal aid or are incapable of defending themselves.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Upholds Orders on Maintenance Charges Proportionality in Condominium Dispute
Key Legal Principles
Equality Before Law: The court cited Article 14 of the Constitution, stressing that the State cannot discriminate between government employees and ordinary citizens in legal matters.
Role of the State: While the State prosecutes crimes, it cannot oppose investigations into its employees unless specific legal exceptions apply.
Legal Aid: The court noted that the accused officials could have sought free legal aid but did not, making the State’s intervention unjustified.
The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial court’s order for investigation. It clarified that the accused officials could still challenge the order independently
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Anu Bala and others
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 148 of 2025