Dismissed¶28

Ajit Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jul 2026CR.R/365/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh HC Shimla; Cr. Revision No. 365 of 2026; Ajit Kumar (petitioner; counsel Somesh Sharma, vice Karun Negi) v. State of H.P. (respondent; counsel Tarun Pathak, Dy. AG); decision 10.07.2026 by Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; reserved 25.06.2026; challenges charge-framing order dated 25.05.2026 of Special Judge, Solan in case State of H.P. Vs. Paramjeet Singh and others; dismissed because petitioner's earlier Section 482 Cr.PC FIR-quashing petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.12.2023 (prima facie case found), order attained finality barring re-agitation; judgment not approved for reporting.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner concealed from this Court that he had earlier filed a petition for quashing of the FIR before the Court, which the Court had dismissed. ¶27

Ajit Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the present revision petition filed against the order dated 25.05.2026 of the learned Special Judge, Solan, vide which charges were framed against the petitioner, should be allowed and the order set aside. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

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.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner concealed from this Court that he had earlier filed a petition for quashing of the FIR before the Court, which the Court had dismissed.

¶27

Key takeaways

The earlier dismissal order was not assailed and has attained finality; therefore, it is impermissible to re-agitate the same question again.ratio¶27
The observations made in this judgment relate solely to the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Cr. Revision No. 365 of 2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla) by Ajit Kumar against the order dated 25.05.2026 of the learned Special Judge, Solan, passed in the case titled 'State of H.P. Vs. Paramjeet Singh and others', vide which charges were framed against him. The petitioner contended he was not named in the FIR but was arrayed subsequently on the basis of an audio recording, that no prima facie case existed against him, and that the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charges. Judge Rakesh Kainthla (decision dated 10.07.2026; not approved for reporting) held that the petitioner had earlier sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.PC on identical pleas, which this Court dismissed on 22.12.2023 after finding a prima facie case against him on the FIR allegations and investigation material; that order was never assailed, attained finality, and its re-agitation was impermissible; consequently, the Trial Court could not be faulted for framing the charge. The petition was dismissed, the observations being confined to disposal of the petition and having no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶1

¶2

2026:HHC:28003

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

Cr. Revision No. 365 of 2026

¶5

Reserved on: 25.6.2026

¶6

Date of Decision: 10.7.2026.

¶7

Ajit Kumar ...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of H.P. ...Respondent

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr Somesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr Karun Negi, Advocate. : For the Respondent Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present petition against

¶15

the order dated 25.05.2026, passed in a case titled State of H.P.

¶16

Vs. Paramjeet Singh and others by learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. vide which charges were framed against the petitioner.

¶17

It has been asserted that the petitioner was not

¶18

arrayed as an accused in the FIR, but was arrayed subsequently

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

2026:HHC:28003

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

¶26

2026:HHC:28003

¶27

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.

¶28

Therefore, the present petition cannot be allowed, and the same is dismissed.

¶29

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the

¶30

merits of the case.

¶31

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶32

10^th July, 2026 (Chander)

Ajit Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar v. State of Hp

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

Ashish Sharma Vs Anupam

Ashish Sharma Vs Anupam

Ashish Sharma Vs Anupam

Naresh Verma Vs Punjab National Bank and another

Sahil @ Sonu Vs State of Hp

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others