Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday ordered the transfer of DGP Sanjay Kundu and Kangra SP Shalini Agnihotri to other posts so that “they would not have any opportunity to influence the investigation in the FIRs” registered in the matter of businessman Nishant Kumar Sharma.

Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, however, added that “we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims of the parties since the investigation is still not complete”.

The high court had taken up the case on the email of Nishant Kumar Sharma, a resident of Palampur (Kangra), which was addressed to the Chief Justice. He alleged that there was a threat to his life from two persons, one of them is a retired IPS officer and another is a practicing lawyer.

Sharma runs a hotel in Palampur. The lawyer was allegedly trying to extort money from him by using the influence of the retired IPS officer. The hotelier alleged that both were making continued efforts to force him and his father to sell their company to them by threatening auditors.

He and his two-and-half-year-old baby faced an attack at his parents’ house in Gurugram on August 25. Then, on October 27, he was threatened when he was on his way back to Mcleodganj from Bhagsunag. That time his wife and infant son were also with him.

The family approached SP Kangra’s office after the incident. He had sent an email to SP’s office and Secretary Home on October 28, but no FIR was registered.

He claimed that he was getting consistent phone calls from the office of the DGP, and also from the DSP, SHO, Palampur, phone nos and times of the calls were also mentioned in the email.

The HC registered the case based on Sharma’s email on November 9.

After that, the court was informed that a case was registered at Mcleodganj police station on November 16 on Sharma’s complaint, dated October 27. Further, SP Shimla said that an FIR was registered against Sharma at Police Station East, Shimla, on the complaint of DGP on November 4, for defamation, forgery, and culpable homicide.

During a hearing on Tuesday, the HC noted that SP Kangra didn’t explain her failure to act on the complaint made on October 28 (by Sharma) immediately, register an FIR, and investigate the same.

“The FIR came to be registered belatedly on November 16 after this Court entertained the CrWP. There is no explanation offered by respondent no.2 (SP Kangra) as to why the material mentioned in the status reports of respondent no.3 (SP Shimla) is not being utilised to probe deeper into the issues/matter as seems to be warranted,” said the bench.

Based on status reports of SP Shimla, the HC observed that DGP had been in touch with the business partner of Sharma and had repeatedly attempted to contact him on October 27 through 15 missed calls.

The bench added that it is alleged by the complainant that after he spoke to the DGP on October 27 and refused to come to Shimla to meet him, an incident allegedly took place at Mcleodganj where two people threatened him.

The court noted that DGP had put the complainant under surveillance and had filed an FIR against him.

The bench said, “We have to ensure that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. This is the basic principle of law we cannot lose sight of.”