_____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:22558 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 271 of 2026 Reserved on: 08.05.2026 Date of Decision 17.06.2026 Nitesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Abhinandan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 /State. Mr Kishore Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 0122 of 2024, dated 18.12.2024, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 2 2026:HHC:22558 281 and 125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties. 2. A perusal of the F.I.R shows that the accused Nitesh Kumar was driving the motorcycle bearing registration HR-17B-9926. Khushbu was sitting as a pillion rider. The motorcycle hit a car bearing registration No DL- 9C-BD-5281 (Ertiga) being driven by informant Mohammad Shahzad. Dr. M.D. Shahbez Alam and Humaira were travelling in the car. 3. The statement of Mohammad Shahzad was recorded on 17.04.2026, in which he stated that the matter was reconciled between him and the accused voluntarily, and he had no objection in case the F.I.R. is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise effected between the parties. However, the statements of the injured Khushbu and occupants of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9CBD- 5281 (Ertiga) were not recorded, and it was submitted that they were not necessary parties. 3 2026:HHC:22558 4. I have heard Mr Abhinandan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and Mr Kishore Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Mr Abhinandan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the matter has been compromised between the informant and the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State submitted that the statements of the injured and the occupants of the car have not been recorded, and in the absence of their statement, the FIR cannot be quashed. 7. Mr Kishore Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ informant, submitted that he has no objection in case the F.I.R. is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise effected between the parties. 4 2026:HHC:22558 8. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Khushbu was a pillion rider who had sustained injuries in the accident. Dr. M.D. Shahbaz Alam and Humaira were occupying the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9CBD-5281 and their lives were endangered by the act of the accused. A person who has sustained injuries and whose life was endangered is interested in the prosecution of the case. It is difficult to see how an F.I.R for causing injury to him can be quashed without hearing him or taking his consent. Thus, the submission that the injured/pillion rider of the motorcycle and occupants of the car were not necessary parties and F.I.R can be quashed in their absence, cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/-, which shall be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025 within a period of four weeks, failing which, steps will be taken to recover it as per the law. 5 2026:HHC:22558 11. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge 17th June, 2026. (ravinder)