RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — CRMMO/424/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 20th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010269372026
Filing Number
CRMMO/3465/2026
Filing Date
04-May-2026
Registration No
CRMMO/424/2026
Registration Date
05-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
20-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA(Not Applicable)
Adv. Aruna Sharma
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)
Adv. ,Bhim Raj Sharma,AG 1123
-
2.Braham Dutt(Not Applicable)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF
Summary: The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed FIR No.15/2022 against Rajesh Kumar Sharma for rash/negligent driving causing hurt under IPC Sections 279, 337-338 and Motor Vehicles Act Section 187. The court found that the parties had amicably settled the dispute through compromise, the complainant (injured party) no longer wished to prosecute, and the offences were minor rather than heinous. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 BNSS to quash proceedings and acquit the accused, noting that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose and would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF
-
06-May-2026
Notice Before Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
-
04-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRMMO/424/2026
Summary: The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed FIR No.15/2022 against Rajesh Kumar Sharma for rash/negligent driving causing hurt under IPC Sections 279, 337-338 and Motor Vehicles Act Section 187. The court found that the parties had amicably settled the dispute through compromise, the complainant (injured party) no longer wished to prosecute, and the offences were minor rather than heinous. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 BNSS to quash proceedings and acquit the accused, noting that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose and would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts