State Cannot Challenge Probe Against Its Own Officers | HP High Court Dismisses Revision Plea For Cops Accused Of Outraging Woman’s Modesty
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, holding that the State was not an "aggrieved person" entitled to challenge an order directing investigation against its officials. The court concluded that since the trial court's order dated 20 January 2025, merely directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Rehan to conduct an investigation against two police officials based on allegations made by a private complainant, and not against the State per se, the State could not claim locus standi to assail the directive.
The High Court stated that crimes are fundamentally considered offenses against the State, but in this instance, the procedural directive issued by the trial court did not impose any legal obligation on the State itself. Consequently, the court rejected the maintainability of the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State, clarifying that the accused officers remain at liberty to seek legal recourse independently if they so choose.
The matter arose from a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the State of Himachal Pradesh, challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, on 20 January 2025. The order pertained to an application under Section 175 of the BNSS submitted by the complainant, Anu Bala, seeking the registration of a criminal case.
Anu Bala's application alleged the commission of offences under Sections 332(c), 126(2), 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations were directed against two individuals, who were police officials stationed at Police Post Rehan, Police Station Nurpur, at the relevant time.
The learned trial court, after considering the application and accompanying documents, passed the following order: "An application for exemption on behalf of complainant moved by Shri Pankaj Tyagi, Advocate is considered and allowed for the reasons stated therein. It be registered and tagged. Heard. As per submissions, the complaint along with documents, after retaining the attested copies of the same on record, is ordered to be sent to SHO, Police Station, Rehan for investigation in accordance with law. Papers of this Court, after due completion, be consigned to record room."
The said directive instructed the SHO to investigate the matter in accordance with law, without imposing any direct burden or obligation on the State. Despite this, the State filed the Criminal Revision before the High Court, challenging the maintainability and propriety of the trial court's order.
The respondents, specifically the two accused police officials, did not independently file any challenge to the order. The High Court, therefore, addressed the preliminary question of whether the State had the legal standing to maintain such a revision petition, considering that the trial court's directive was aimed not at the State but at its functionaries.
To substantiate the petition, Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General, relied on Clause 3(c)(ii) of the Notification dated 25 May 1971, issued by the Home Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh. The provision stipulates that: "He [Advocate General] will appear, or arrange for the appearance of counsel, in the following civil cases: (ii) cases in the High Court to which officers serving under the State Government are parties and which, the State Government has decided to conduct on behalf of such officers."
The State also invoked the instructions issued by the Law Department dated 25 October 2005, suggesting that it was within the State's prerogative to defend its officers in legal proceedings.
However, the pleadings did not indicate that the concerned officers were incapacitated from representing themselves, nor was there any averment that they were entitled to free legal aid. Furthermore, the officers had not sought the assistance of the Legal Services Authority for such aid.
The court framed the core issue as one of maintainability, stating: "The question of maintainability is required to be decided before proceeding further, in this case."
The High Court elaborated on the general principles governing criminal law, noting: "Crimes primarily involve harm to the individuals or to their property, but, the crimes are considered offence against the State, because, they breach the public order and the established legal system. The State, acting on behalf of the society, prosecutes the violators to maintain peace and security."
It further recorded: "Crime is always committed against the State and not against a particular person. The person, against whom, the offence is committed, is a victim, who, suffers at the hands of the offenders and the State prosecutes against such offenders."
On the constitutional mandate, the judgment observed: "Even, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is based upon the golden principle that every person is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. The State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens."
Addressing the State’s role in the present proceedings, the court noted: "State cannot protect a person against whom an offence has been alleged and the competent Court of law has passed the direction to the competent authority to inquire into the matter."
Regarding the officers in question, the court remarked: "When, respondent No. 1-Anu Bala alleged offences against the two individuals, who, at the relevant time, were posted as police official at Police Post Rehan, Police Station Nurpur and the competent Court of law has passed the order, dated 20th January, 2025, directing the SHO to investigate the matter, in accordance with law, then, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Criminal Revision, which has been filed, by the State, is not maintainable."
The court stated that the order did not contain any directive against the State itself: "From no stretch of imagination, the State can be said to be the 'aggrieved person' to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, as, no direction has been issued, in the said order, against the State."
In response to the State's reliance on Clause 3(c)(ii) of the 1971 Notification, the court held: "It cannot be said that the golden principle that crime is always against the State, is liable to be ignored. Merely, since, the proposed accused persons are Government servants, will not give an authority to the State to assail the order."
Similarly, the court rejected the applicability of the 2005 Law Department instructions: "The State cannot take advantage of even these instructions, to assail the order, on behalf of the persons, against whom, the accusation has been made... only on account of the fact that said offenders happen to be the Government servants."
The judgment also noted the absence of any claims regarding the officers' inability to pursue their own legal remedies: "The pleadings are totally silent about the fact as to whether the proposed accused persons... are incapable of pursuing the matter, on account of any reason or they are entitled to free legal aid."
The court concluded its judgment with the following clear directive: "In view of the above, Criminal Revision by the State is not maintainable, as such, the same is rejected."
It further clarified: "Needless to say that the rejection of the present Criminal Revision, by the State, on account of maintainability, does not preclude proforma respondents No. 2 and 3, from assailing the order, if so advised."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh versus Anu Bala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:25617
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 148 of 2025
Bench: Justice Virender Singh
