Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 08 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Complainant‑Petitioner Nishant Sharma (individual) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (Respondents). Intervenors included senior advocates and additional respondents.
  • Background: Sharma filed a representation on 28 Oct 2023 alleging intimidation by then DGP Sanjay Kundu and involvement of ex‑IPS officer Sachin Shreedhar, his brother Tarun Shreedhar (Senior IAS), and senior advocate Keshav Dutt Shreedhar. The alleged incident was a gang‑threat at the gate of Sharma’s parents’ house in Gurugram on 25 Aug 2023, followed by a threatening encounter on 27 Oct 2023 after a call from the DGP.
  • Procedural History:
  • 16 Nov 2023 – Interim order appointing amicus and providing protection; FIR No. 55 registered on 16 Nov 2023.
  • 26 Dec 2023 – Transfer orders for Deputy SP and SP Kangra stayed pending SLP No. 54019/2023 filed by Sanjay Kundu; recall application rejected on 09 Jan 2024; SIT of IG level appointed.
  • 19 Apr 2024 – Apex Court stayed order; Superintendent of Police Kangra barred from security and investigation.
  • 22 May 2024 – Coordinate Bench directed that final report not be filed in FIR No. 98/2023 (Sections 500, 505 IPC) and FIR No. 55/2023 (Sections 341, 504, 506, 34).
  • 23 Sep 2024 – Addition of IPC Sections 384‑387 to FIR No. 55/2023; SIT expanded with H.P. Armed Police Battalion officer; order stayed by SLP No. 45241/2024 on 01 Oct 2024.
  • 07 Apr 2025 – SLP No. 2167/2025 (State) disposed; investigation concluded by SIT.
  • 07 Feb 2025 – Cr.W.P. No. 4/2025 filed challenging order dated 18 Nov 2024; interim relief denied.
  • 16 Sep 2025 – Apex Court noted both FIRs examined by SIT; directed reports be placed before High Court; security for Sharma discontinued; contempt petitions (C No. 498‑500/2025) closed.
  • Investigative Findings (SIT):
  • Extensive site visits, CCTV analysis, forensic examination, IPDR data, and witness interviews found no substantial evidence supporting Sharma’s intimidation claims.
  • CCTV footage showed no suspicious motorcycles; witnesses (shopkeepers, taxi‑drivers, residents) denied any incident.
  • Forensic analysis confirmed no tampering of CCTV; telecom data showed no link between alleged assailants and Sharma’s phone.
  • The investigation identified inconsistencies in Sharma’s timeline and lack of immediate police reporting.
  • The SIT concluded the allegations were fabricated to gain leverage in an ongoing business dispute with Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, who held 51 % of Shri Chamunda Laboratories and Projects Pvt. Ltd (hotel “Sai Gardens”).
  • No unauthorized surveillance of Sharma was found.
  • The business dispute is also pending before the National Company Law Tribunal.
  • Legal Conclusions:
  • FIR No. 98/2023 (filed by DGP Kundu) was directed to be closed as the offence is non‑cognizable.
  • Sections 499‑500 IPC (defamation) were the only applicable provisions; Sections 327, 506, 120B, 505 were removed.
  • The court referenced several precedents (Abhinandan Jha vs Dinesh Mishra, Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali, etc.) to affirm magistrate’s discretion to accept or reject cancellation reports.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court ordered that the two SIT reports be placed before it for further review; discretion left to proceed in accordance with law.
  • Security protection granted to Nishant Sharma was discontinued; Sharma may approach the High Court if genuine threat persists.
  • All contempt petitions (C No. 498‑500/2025) were closed.
  • No further orders were issued; the matter is left to the competent magistrate to accept the cancellation reports or order further investigation.
  • Parties were given liberty to file objections or fresh complaints under relevant provisions.

Topics: Legal Proceedings, Business Dispute