LILLY GOYAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2026 INSC 856Page 1 of 4

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 3807 of 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12581 of 2026)

Lilly Goyal

….Appellant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

....Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the sister of the deceased husband of the

second respondent. The second respondent’s marriage was

plagued with marital discord. When the husband was alive, the

appellant and the second respondent and their families were

going hammer and tongs at each other due to the marital discord.

Criminal proceedings were also initiated against each other.

Later, all of these came to be settled on 20.06.2024 by Annexure

P4, settlement deed, after the husband of the second respondent

died. There was a compromise entered into between the second

respondent and the family of the appellant as is seen from

Annexure P4. However, what remained was a solitary complaint

under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered as

Page 2 of 4

Police Kalendra No.4 of 2021, pending before the Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC), Nahan, District Sirmaur,

Himachal Pradesh.

3. The appellant by the application under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) sought for quashing

the complaint. The High Court referred to a number of decisions

and found that the offence under Section 182 of the IPC read with

the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C is a matter between the

‘public servant and the ‘offender’. The settlement between the

appellant and the second respondent does not put an end to that,

since the offence is against the public servant. The High Court

dismissed the application.

4. We cannot but observe that the rejection was without

looking at the complaint itself, which is produced at Annexure P4.

In fact, the complaint was made by the second respondent, when

the fight between the two families were raging and the allegation

was that the appellant herein made complaints to various

departments as noticed in Annexure P2, which were false and

misleading statements intended at harassing the second

respondent and pressurizing her to withdraw the various

complaints. The allegation was also that the complaints were

made in the various Government Departments, not only against

Page 3 of 4

the second respondent but also her family members. A complaint

was filed before the Women Police Station, Nahan, District

Sirmaur and allegedly after investigation the complaint was found

to be true; ie: the various complaints made before the numerous

departments were aimed at intimidating the complainant and that

they were rejected as false and frivolous.

5. True, Section 182 if committed is between the offender and

the public servant and Section 195 clearly stipulates that, for

offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188, no cognizance

shall be taken unless the complaint in writing is of the public

servant or of some other public servant to whom he is

administratively sub-ordinate. There is no complaint filed by any

of the officers in the various departments where the allegations

were raised by the appellant herein. The Officer in-charge of the

Women Police Station is neither the public servant to whom

allegedly false and frivolous statements were made nor is the said

officer administratively superior to the public servant made

mention of in the complaint of the second respondent.

6. The complaint is ill-motivated and in any event no

cognizance could have been taken based on Annexure P2 filed by

a police officer before whom the second respondent complained

Page 4 of 4

of false and frivolous complaints made by the appellant against

the second respondent and her family members.

7. We find absolutely no reason to permit the continuance of

the proceedings. The proceedings before the JMFC, Nahan,

District, Sirmaur initiated by Police Kalendra No.4 of 2021 shall

stand quashed, whatever the stage be, no further proceedings

shall be taken and if the appellant has been released on bail, the

bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

8. The appeal stands allowed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.……………………………... J.

(J. B. PARDIWALA)

..………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 11, 2026.