Dismissed¶20

Sanam Dorje v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 May 2025CRMMO/128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused despite claimed compromise; consent of all injured persons and opportunity to them necessary, else violation of natural justice; Section 482 Cr.P.C jurisdiction does not extend to testing correctness of FIR allegations; injuries recorded in FIR to be accepted as correct; Sections 279 & 337 IPC; FIR No.171/2023, Police Station Theog, District Shimla; petition dismissed; Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2025, Cr. MMO.

What did the court decide?

The FIR cannot be quashed without the consent of the injured and without affording them an opportunity in the present case. ¶15

Sanam Dorje Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.171/2023 (Sections 279 & 337 IPC) can be quashed on the basis of a claimed compromise when only one of the three injured persons named in the FIR appeared before the Court and the consent/opportunity of the other injured persons was absent.

¶15

Court's answer

The FIR cannot be quashed without the consent of the injured and without affording them an opportunity in the present case.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Quashing the FIR without the consent of, and opportunity to, the injured would violate the principle of natural justice and is simply not permissible.

¶15

Key takeaways

While exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court does not go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR.ratio¶16
Once the FIR mentions that persons sustained injuries, that has to be accepted as correct; therefore the submission that Ayush Negi and Ajay Kumar sustained no injury will not help the petitioner.ratio¶19
The observations made in the judgment remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing on the merits of the case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Cr. MMO No.128 of 2025, decision 07.05.2025) dismissed a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.171/2023 dated 16.11.2023 (Sections 279 & 337 IPC, Police Station Theog, District Shimla) and consequential proceedings. Although the petitioner asserted an amicable settlement/compromise with respondents No. 2 & 3, the FIR records three injured persons (Sumit Kashyap, Ayush Negi and Ajay Kumar) and only Sumit Kashyap appeared before the Court. The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed without the consent of the injured and without affording them an opportunity, as that would violate the principle of natural justice. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court does not examine the correctness of allegations in the FIR; once the FIR records that persons sustained injuries, that must be accepted as correct. Observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶1

( 2025:HHC:13092 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No.128 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025.

¶4

Sanam Dorge ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents/State: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.171/2023 dated 16.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) at Police Station Theog, District Shimla (H.P.) and all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

¶12

( 2025:HHC:13092 )

¶13

It has been asserted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3 have been amicably settled and they have entered into a compromise to this effect.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

A perusal of the FIR shows that the matter was reported to the police by respondent No.3 – Chaman Lal whereas, Sumit Kashyap, Ayush Negi & Ajay Kumar had sustained injuries. Out of three injured person, only one person namely, Sumit Kashyap appeared before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ayush Negi & Ajay Kumar were traveling in the vehicle and they are not the necessary parties. This submission is not acceptable. The FIR cannot be quashed without the consent of the injured and without affording an opportunity to them in the present case. This would be a violation of the principle of natural justice and simply not permissible.

¶16

It was submitted that those persons have not sustained any injury, their presence is not necessary. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C does not go

¶17

¶18

( 2025:HHC:13092 )

¶19

into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR. Once, it was mentioned in the FIR that those persons had sustained injuries, this has to be accepted as correct. Therefore, this submission will not help the petitioner.

¶20

In view of above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶21

The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶22

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶23

7^th May, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)

Sanam Dorje v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanam Dorje v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Baldev Singh

Satyabhan Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Mohit Kumar

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Vimal Rana Vs State of Hp

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp