2026:HHC:35433 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 521 of 2026 Reserved on: 18.8.2026 Date of Decision: 21.8.2026. Mohit Ranta ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. ….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Jagan Nath, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Ms Suman Kumari, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has )led the present petition for quashing of FIR No.113 of 2019, dated 22.12.2019, registered at Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of o1ences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 185 and 186 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act) based on a compromise between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35433 2. A perusal of the FIR shows that the matter was reported to the police by one Raj Kumar. The police visited the spot and found, after the spot inspection, that the accident had occurred because of the petitioner’s negligence. It was submitted on the last date of hearing that Raj Kumar would be the informant in the present case. However, the Court passed a detailed order that the information provided by Raj Kumar did not disclose the commission of a cognizable o1ence. Therefore, he would not be the informant, but HC Ramesh, who had visited the spot and concluded after the spot inspection that the accident was caused by the negligence of the petitioner, would be the informant. Hence, the informant and Raj Kumar were directed to be present before the Court. 3. In pursuance of the order passed by the Court, the petitioner has only produced Raj Kumar and submitted that HC Ramesh is not a necessary party for quashing the FIR lodged against the petitioner. This submission cannot be accepted. The Court had concluded that HC Ramesh would be the informant in the present case. The criminal machinery was set in motion as per his complaint; therefore, he is a necessary party. Further, a perusal of the FIR shows that the vehicle had gone o1 the road and prima 3 2026:HHC:35433 facie, the petitioner's negligence is writ large. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is impermissible to quash the FIR based on a statement made by Raj Kumar. Consequently, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 4. 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 21st August, 2026 (Chander)