IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.193 of 2010 Date of decision: 22nd October, 2010. Ved Sharma … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 155(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that the Court could not take cognizance of the complaint, as filed against him. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court in Cr.M.M.O. No.104 of 2010, challenging the issue of process on the ground that the complaint has not been instituted in consonance with the provisions of Sections 155 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 The Court holds as a fact that the complaint has been presented in accordance with law and that there is no breach of provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Court has rightly considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I do not intend to interfere with the order at this stage. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 4. If there is a fundamental lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint, this point can always be taken up by the petitioner at the time of framing of charge. This order shall not preclude the petitioner from raising any such dispute. October 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.