Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee Vs Kusum Sood

2025:HHC:32440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	Cr. Revision No. 333 of 2025
	Reserved on : 08.09.2025
	Decided on : 18.09.2025
Sanatan Dharam Praban H.P.	dhak Committee, Sanjauli Shimla, …Petitioner Versus
Smt. Kusum Sood	…Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice	Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?¹
For the petitioner :	Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondent :	Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ankit
	Dhiman and Mr. Hemant
	Kumar Thakur, Advocates.

¶4

Virender Singh, Judge

¶5

The petitioner Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee, Sanjauli, Shimla, H.P. through its President Sh. Ashwani Sood, has preferred the present Criminal Revision against the order dated 26.06.2024, passed by the

¶6

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶7

2 2025:HHC:32440

¶8

Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Criminal Case No. 04 of 2019, titled as ‘Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee, Sanjauli, Shimla Vs Smt. Kusum Sood’.

¶9

Vide the said order dated 26.06.2024, the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent Smt. Kusum Sood, has been ordered to be dismissed, for want of prosecution and the respondent was ordered to be acquitted.

¶10

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present Criminal Revision, are referred to, in the same manner, in which they were referred to, before the learned trial Court.

¶11

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present Criminal Revision, as borne out from the record are summed up, as under:

¶12

4.1 The complainant committee has filed a complaint under Section 199 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against accused Kusum Sood, for the

¶13

3 2025:HHC:32440

¶14

commission of offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

4.2 After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, as such, the summoning orders were passed on 04.06.2019.

¶16

4.3 After securing the presence of the accused, the learned trial Court has put the Notice of Accusation to the accused for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 27.10.2022. When notice of accusation was put to the accused, she has not pleaded the guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶17

4.4 Consequently, the complainant has been directed to adduce evidence.

¶18

4.5 Thereafter, number of opportunities were given to the complainant to lead evidence, however, the complainant could not examine its evidence, in order to substantiate its complaint against the accused. Consequently, on 26.06.2024, the learned trial Court has

¶19

4 2025:HHC:32440

¶20

passed the order dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution.

¶21

Aggrieved from the said order, the present Criminal Revision has been filed before this Court, assailing the order passed by the learned trial Court, on the ground that Sh. Ashwani Sood, President of complainant Committee, through whom, the complainant is pursuing its complaint, is a chronic patient of diabetes and due to this fact, he could not appear on 14.03.2024. Thereafter, the complainant was further directed to adduce evidence on 07.05.2024, that too at the cost of Rs. 500/. However, due to the ailment of Sh. Ashwani Sood, no evidence could be examined before the learned trial Court. 6. In nutshell, the order dated 26.06.2024, has been assailed on the ground that Sh. Ashwani Sood, President of the complainant Committee, was suffering from various ailments and he was advised complete bed rest. As such, the order by virtue of which the complaint has been dismissed for non prosecution has been sought to be set aside.

¶22

5 2025:HHC:32440

¶23

Perusal of the record shows that the Notice of Accusation was put to the accused on 27.10.2022, and the order dismissing the complaint was passed by the learned trial Court on 26.06.2024. Meaning thereby, almost for two years, the case remained listed for recording the statements of complainant’s witnesses.

¶24

Perusal of the record shows that on 27.10.2022, when complainant was directed to adduce its evidence, then, direction was issued to the complainant to take steps within a period of seven days and as per the report made by the concerned Criminal Ahlmad, the steps had not been taken. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 26.11.2022. On that day, no evidence was adduced and again matter was adjourned for 23.12.2022, by giving the complainant liberty to take steps within seven days. Again, steps had not been taken. Similarly, on 23.12.2022, neither steps were taken, nor any witness had been examined.

¶25

Admittedly, steps were not taken till 26.06.2024, when the complaint was dismissed for non prosecution. Almost eight effective opportunities have been given to the complainant to examine its witnesses,

¶26

6

¶27

2025:HHC:32440

¶28

including the last opportunity, which was given, subject to cost of Rs. 500/.

¶29

In such situation, the alleged ailment of Sh. Ashwani Sood, is too short to grant any relief to the complainant, as any other member of the complainant society could have been authorized to depose on behalf of the complainant, in case complainant Sh. Ashwani Sood was unable to appear in the witness box, due to his ailment.

¶30

Considering this fact, this Court is of the view that complainant is not entitled for any relief, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction, where scope of interference is limited.

¶31

Consequently, the Criminal Revision sans merit and the same is dismissed.

¶32

Send down the record.

¶33

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶34

18^th September, 2025

¶35

(Pramod)

Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee v. Kusum Sood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee v. Kusum Sood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Janata Vs Ajay Sood

Sumitra Vs Neeraj Kumar and Another

Bhupender Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Aman Vs State of Hp

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Hp Gramin Bank Bithal

Ashutosh Thakur Vs Vikrant Sharma