HC directs Himachal govt to shift DGP, Kangra SP over bizman’s complaint
In its order, the court also said it was intervening due to “exceptional circumstances” in the matter, “more particularly when the respondent home secretary had chosen to turn a blind eye” to material presented in the case
The Himachal Pradesh high court on Tuesday directed the state government to shift the state police chief and the Kangra superintendent of police so that they do not influence the probe in a businessman’s complaint about extortion and threat to his life.

In its order, the court also said it was intervening due to “exceptional circumstances” in the matter, “more particularly when the respondent home secretary had chosen to turn a blind eye” to material presented in the case.
In his complaint filed on October 28, Palampur-based businessman Nishant Sharma alleged threat to him, his family and property.
He had also questioned the role of the director general of police Sanjay Kundu, who had allegedly made calls to him, asking him to come to Shimla.
“Shift them (the DGP and the Kangra police chief) to other posts where they would not have any opportunity to influence the investigation in the case,” said a division bench of chief justice MS Ramachandra Rao and justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.
“In the light of the material available to us in this case till date, we are satisfied that exceptional circumstances do exist for intervening in the matter, more particularly when the respondent home secretary had chosen to turn a blind eye to the said material for reasons best known to it,” the order said.
The Court observed that the SP, Kangra, showed very little progress in the investigation after having deliberately delayed the registration of FIR till November 16, despite having received a complaint on October 28 through an email from the complainant.
On November 16, an FIR was registered against two unknown people by the Kangra police in compliance with the directions of the high court.
The FIR was registered for wrongful restraint, intentionally causing hurt, criminal intimidation and criminal act done by several persons with common intention under sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against two people as alleged in the complaint, Kangra police said.
Earlier, on November 10, taking suo moto cognisance of the businessman’s complaint, the Himachal Pradesh high court had issued a notice to SPs of Shimla and Kangra to file a status report in the court in regard to the complaint.
In his complaint, also marked to the chief justice of HP high court, businessman Sharma had alleged impending threat to him, his family members and property from his partners.
He cited an incident of a “brutal attack” on him in Gurugram on August 25, saying two influential persons of Himachal Pradesh, including a former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, were involved. “I came to Palampur in Kangra district after the attack but the DGP called me up from his official number and forced me to come to Shimla and on the same day two criminals stop me at Mcleodganj in Dharamshala and threaten to harm my two-and-half-year old kid and wife,” he alleged.
“I drove to the house of the superintendent of police, Kangra at Dharamshala and narrated the plight to her and gave her my complaint but nothing has been done so far,” he claimed.
“I demand an independent and unbiased investigation and lodging of an FIR against everyone. This is the only way you would be able to apprehend this gang of extortionists,” he had said. Earlier, a case of defamation was registered against Nishant on the complaint of the DGP for harming his reputation and attempting to malign his image.
In his complaint, DGP Sanjay Kundu said Sharma had on October 29 shot off a letter to the DGP on his official email, marking copies to other officials, in which he made false allegations with intentions to harm his reputation and tarnish his image.
A case under sections 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure), 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation), 499 (defamation) and 500 of the IPC was registered against the businessman.