A tense episode outside the home of a judicial officer in Mandi has now firmly moved to trial, after the Himachal Pradesh High Court declined to interfere. On Wednesday, the court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR against relatives of an accused, holding that their conduct, as alleged, crossed legal limits and could not be brushed aside at this stage. The ruling came from Justice Rakesh Kainthla, who heard the matter in detail and reserved no sympathy for attempts to short-circuit the legal process.
Background
The case traces back to October 2, 2021. The informant, an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate posted at Mandi, was at her official residence when an accused in another case was produced before her and remanded to police custody. Soon after, a bail application was moved and listed for the next day.
What followed, according to the FIR, was an unpleasant turn. After the advocate left, several relatives of the accused allegedly remained outside the magistrate’s residence, blocked the passage, raised slogans, and demanded immediate bail. The officer later stated that she, her elderly parents, and her four-year-old child were effectively confined inside until the group dispersed.
Police registered an FIR under provisions relating to trespass and obstruction of a public servant. A charge-sheet was filed in 2022, and earlier this year, the trial court framed notice of accusation. Only then did the accused approach the High Court seeking quashing.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kainthla was blunt in rejecting the defence narrative. One of the key arguments was that the building functioned as a court and hence entry could not amount to trespass. The court found this reasoning self-defeating. “The petitioners cannot claim a right of entry by calling the residence a court, without accepting that the informant was functioning as a judicial officer at the relevant time,” the bench observed.
The judge also noted that judicial work had already concluded. The remand order was passed, and the bail plea stood listed for the next day. “Sitting outside the residence and shouting for bail after the court proceedings had ended cannot be justified,” the order said in substance.
Read also:- Kerala High Court refuses bail to Palakkad man accused of bus harassment, says grave allegations block extraordinary relief under new
Explaining the law in simple terms, the court clarified that criminal trespass is not just about entering forcibly. Even entry or remaining on someone’s property to intimidate or pressure them can attract the offence. On the allegations, the court found a prima facie case of trespass and wrongful confinement. “A citizen has a right to approach the court through lawful means, not by intimidating a judicial officer,” Justice Kainthla remarked.
The delay also weighed heavily. The petition was filed more than three and a half years after the FIR, without any convincing explanation. The court cited Supreme Court rulings cautioning against entertaining belated quashing petitions when the trial has already begun.
Read also:- Kerala High Court refuses bail to Palakkad man accused of bus harassment, says grave allegations block extraordinary relief under new
Decision
In the end, the High Court refused to quash the FIR or the criminal proceedings. Holding that sufficient material exists to proceed and that it cannot conduct a mini-trial at this stage, the court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations are limited to deciding the quashing plea and will not influence the trial court on merits. The case will now continue before the competent trial court.
Case Title: Gurdev Sharma & Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition for Quashing FIR)
Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 1098 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2025
