Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17703 (HP)

KIRAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CRMMO/494/2026 · 2026-07-28

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:30945 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 494 of 2026 Reserved on: 22.7.2026 Date of Decision: 28.7.2026. Kiran Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Harmohan Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr Aman Hansretta, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.95 of 2023, dated 1.11.2023, registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:30945 proceedings arising out of the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties to maintain cordial relations. The informant/victim has no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the parties. Hence the petition. 3. As per the FIR, Naveen Shyam and Raman Dharma had sustained injuries in the accident. Raman Dharma appeared before the Court on 04.06.2026 and stated that he had not sustained any injuries in the accident. This Court cannot determine whether the prosecution version is correct or the statement of Raman Dharma is correct while exercising the inherent jurisdiction, and this is a matter to be determined during the trial. The premise of the petition that the matter has been compromised between the parties is not established by the statement of Raman Dharma, and the FIR cannot be quashed in these circumstances. 4. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 3 2026:HHC:30945 5. The observation made hereinbefore 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 28th July, 2026 (Chander)