The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside an FIR registered in connection with a long-running land dispute in Sirmaur district, ruling that the complainant had not followed the mandatory legal procedure before approaching a magistrate for directions to register a criminal case.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla passed the order while deciding three connected petitions arising from a common order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan.
Background of the Case
The dispute stemmed from a complaint filed by Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, who claimed that he had entered into an agreement in 2004 to purchase a large parcel of land at Ogli in Sirmaur district. According to him, substantial sale consideration had been paid and possession of the land had been handed over, but the remaining sale deed was never executed.
Sharma alleged that in February 2024, some of the accused entered the disputed property and threatened him and his workers. After claiming that no action was taken on his complaint, he moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR.
The magistrate found that the allegations disclosed certain cognizable offences and directed registration of an FIR, following which FIR No. 97 of 2025 was registered at Kala Amb Police Station.
The accused challenged both the magistrate’s order and the FIR before the High Court.
Their counsel argued that the complainant had not first approached the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station as required under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further argued that the dispute primarily related to execution of a sale deed and was already the subject of pending civil proceedings.
The State opposed interference at the investigation stage, while the complainant maintained that the allegations disclosed criminal offences and justified registration of the FIR.
Justice Kainthla examined recent Supreme Court decisions governing the exercise of powers to quash criminal proceedings.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ranjit Singh Bath, the High Court noted that a complainant must first exhaust the remedies available under Section 154 before seeking a magistrate's intervention under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Court observed that the complainant had approached the Director General of Police directly instead of first furnishing information to the officer in charge of the concerned police station.
Quoting the Supreme Court's position, the Court noted that, “before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154.”
Holding that the mandatory procedural requirements had not been complied with, the High Court quashed both the magistrate's order dated June 10, 2025 and FIR No. 97 of 2025 registered at Police Station Kala Amb.
The Court clarified that the FIR was being quashed solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 154 CrPC and observed that the complainant would be free to take appropriate steps afresh after following the procedure prescribed by law. Since the matter was being decided on that ground alone, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the other arguments raised by the accused.
Accordingly, the petitions filed by the accused were allowed, while the complainant's connected petition was dismissed as infructuous.
The Court also clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the underlying dispute.
