2026:HHC:21022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1192 of 2025 Reserved on: 4.5.2026 Date of Decision: 2.6.2026. Hemant Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Sative Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 : Mr Rohit Thakur, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 138 of 2023, dated 27.7.2023, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:21022 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner and the victim have compromised the matter with the intervention of the family members and elders. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter. Hence the petition. 3. The statement of the informant/victim, Sanjay Kumar, was recorded on 16.12.2025, in which he stated that the matter had been reconciled with the petitioner, and he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. It was noticed on 1.1.2026 that the informant Manoj Kumar was not produced before the Court, and an opportunity was required to be granted to the petitioner to produce him before the Court. 4. Mr Sative Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the presence of the informant is not necessary before the Court and the petition can be quashed in his absence as well. He relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2021, titled Sushant Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 24.3.2023 in support of his case. 5. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded the informant and the FIR should not be quashed 3 2026:HHC:21022 without hearing him. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The FIR mentions that the informant and Sanjay Kumar were travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-11A-7811. The vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01A-8254 hit their vehicle. The informant followed the offending vehicle and intercepted it. The driver started beating the informant and Sanjay Kumar. The driver of the offending vehicle picked up a stick and hit Sanjay Kumar on the head. Thus, it is apparent that, as per the FIR, the vehicle driven by the petitioner/accused had hit the vehicle in which the informant was travelling. Therefore, the act of the petitioner had prima facie endangered the informant’s safety. The petitioner had also beaten the informant and inflicted an injury by means of a stick on the head of Sanjay. Therefore, the informant was a victim of the crime, who would be adversely affected by the quashing of the FIR, and the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. 4 2026:HHC:21022 8. Since all the parties adversely affected by the crime are now before the Court, the petition cannot be allowed, and it is dismissed. 9. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2nd June, 2026 (Chander)