IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 838 of 2025 Reserved on: 2.9.2025 Date of Decision: 12.9.2025.

Mohit Ranta ...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. Jagan Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 113/19, dated 22.12.2019, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 185 and 186 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), registered at Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. and the proceedings pending before learned

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

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, Circuit Court, Theog, District Shimla, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that the petHitioner was going to his village in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-10A-0844. Some animals crossed the road suddenly. The petitioner tried to save them, but the car skidded and fell off the road. The petitioner sustained minor injuries. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the FIR. A charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation. No person was present on the site of the accident, and there is no basis for filing the charge sheet. There was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. No other person had sustained injuries. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.

3. I have heard Mr. Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no eyewitness to the incident. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Saurabh Sharma v. State of H.P., Cr.MMONo. 1096 of 2022, decided on 8.12.2022 in support of his submission.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a state of intoxication, and Section 185 of the MV Act was added by the police. The vehicle had left the road, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies to the present case. Th e FIR cannot be quashed merely because no one had witnessed the incident. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

“7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: H “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of lfaw enunciated by this Court in a series of decisionos relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be pos