( 2025:HHC:13092 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.128 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025. Sanam Dorge ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents/State: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.171/2023 dated 16.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) at Police Station Theog, District Shimla (H.P.) and all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:13092 ) 2. It has been asserted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3 have been amicably settled and they have entered into a compromise to this effect. 3. Heard. 4. A perusal of the FIR shows that the matter was reported to the police by respondent No.3 – Chaman Lal whereas, Sumit Kashyap, Ayush Negi & Ajay Kumar had sustained injuries. Out of three injured person, only one person namely, Sumit Kashyap appeared before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ayush Negi & Ajay Kumar were traveling in the vehicle and they are not the necessary parties. This submission is not acceptable. The FIR cannot be quashed without the consent of the injured and without affording an opportunity to them in the present case. This would be a violation of the principle of natural justice and simply not permissible. 5. It was submitted that those persons have not sustained any injury, their presence is not necessary. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C does not go 3 ( 2025:HHC:13092 ) into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR. Once, it was mentioned in the FIR that those persons had sustained injuries, this has to be accepted as correct. Therefore, this submission will not help the petitioner. 6. In view of above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 7th May, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)