Himachal HC drops suo motu proceedings initiated against hotelier Nishant Sharma’s representation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday disposed of the proceedings initiated on the basis of a 2023-representation filed by a hotelier, granting him liberty to issue notice and raise objections before the competent Magistrate against a police cancellation report.

The court also allowed former Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Kundu to challenge the cancellation report filed in the cross-case and pursue remedies available under law.

The court granted liberty to the complainant, Palampur-based hotelier Nishant Sharma, to contest the cancellation report submitted in his complaint after receiving notice from the Magistrate. It also clarified that the ex-DGP Sanjay Kundu was free to file objections against the cancellation report in the FIR registered on his complaint or institute a complaint under the relevant provisions of law, if so advised.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that no further orders were required in the matter. The bench observed that the dispute had now reached a stage where it was for the jurisdictional Magistrate to examine the cancellation reports filed by the investigating agencies and decide whether to accept them, order further investigation or take cognisance in accordance with law.

“Resultantly, we do not wish to further comment upon the matter and leave the parties to agitate their rights before the court of competent jurisdiction, namely the Magistrate,” the Bench observed while disposing of the proceedings.

The bench said, “Keeping in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no further orders are required in the matter which was initiated on the representation filed by the complainant and the proceedings are necessarily to be dropped herein with liberty to give notice to complainant – Nishant Sharma. Sanjay Kundu is also free to file objections against the cancellation and it is open to him to file a complaint as such under the relevant provisions of law… The proceedings are disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid liberty.”

The proceedings stemmed from an email and representation dated October 28, 2023, addressed by Nishant Sharma to the then Chief Justice of the High Court, alleging intimidation by the then DGP and seeking judicial intervention. Taking serious note of the allegations, a Coordinate Bench had sought a status report on November 10, 2023, as the complaint alleged that the state’s highest-ranking police officer had attempted to intimidate the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

On November 5 in 2023, the then DGP, Sanjay Kundu, had lodged an FIR against the businessman Nishant Sharma with the district police Shimla for the alleged act of forgery, false charge and defamation. Shimla police filed a cancellation report in this case before a Shimla court on March 26, 2025.

The businessman, Nishant Sharma, lodged an FIR alleging he was attacked by unknown assailants in Mcleodganj on November 16, 2023. An investigation team moved a cancellation report in this case before a Dharamshala court in September, 2025.

The controversy itself had its roots in an earlier incident on August 25, 2023, when armed assailants allegedly fired outside Sharma’s parents’ residence in Gurgaon. Later, the Gurgaon police had also filed a cancellation report in the matter.

The HC noted that the investigating agency had reached a “logical conclusion” after examining the available material.

Story continues below this ad

The bench also observed that the investigation indicated the alleged incident appeared to be “an afterthought or dilatory tactic” arising out of business disputes between the parties, and found no infirmity in the justification recorded by the investigating agency while recommending cancellation.

In respect of the FIR lodged by the former DGP, the HC noted that the complaint primarily was related to emails, which were allegedly circulated by Sharma against Kundu. However, the investigating agency concluded that Sharma had neither interfered with Kundu’s official functions nor obstructed him in the discharge of his professional duties. It found that, at best, the allegations disclosed offences relating to criminal defamation under IPC Sections 499 and 500, for which prosecution can only be initiated through a private complaint before a Magistrate and not through police investigation.

The Bench accepted that the investigating agency had not acted with any ulterior motive, and that the investigations in both cases had been conducted fairly without leaving any significant loose ends.

The High Court emphasised that the ultimate decision rests with the jurisdictional Magistrate. The court observed that it would be open to the Magistrate to accept the cancellation reports, reject them, take cognisance of the offences, or direct further investigation, depending upon the material placed before the court.