1 2026:HHC:28003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 365 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.6.2026 Date of Decision: 10.7.2026. Ajit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Somesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr Karun Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 25.05.2026, passed in a case titled State of H.P. Vs. Paramjeet Singh and others by learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. vide which charges were framed against the petitioner. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR, but was arrayed subsequently 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:28003 based on an audio recording. The petitioner had tried to settle the dispute between the informant and the accused. There is no prima facie case against the petitioner, and the conversation does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioner was being compelled to act as a witness, but he refused, and he was arrayed as an accused. Learned Trial Court erred in framing the charges. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 25.05.2026 shows that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) seeking the quashing of the FIR. He had taken the identical pleas in the petition, and these were rejected. This Court dismissed the petition on 22.12.2023 after holding that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected by the police during the investigation make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The Court discussed the transcription of the conversation and found that, prima facie, the petitioner’s involvement was made out in the commission of the crime. 3 2026:HHC:28003 4. The petitioner has concealed from the Court that he had filed a petition for quashing of the FIR before the Court, which the Court had dismissed. The petitioner is taking the same pleas that were earlier decided by the Court. The order was not assailed and has attained finality. Therefore, it is impermissible to re-agitate the same question again. Once this Court had held that a prima facie case was made out, the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted for holding that sufficient material exists for framing the charge against the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the present petition cannot be allowed, and the same is dismissed. 6. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th July, 2026 (Chander)