Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21185 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 509 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.6.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025. Nandan Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rocky, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR No.38/2023, dated 09.03.2023, registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. A perusal of the FIR shows that a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-40F-1998 came at a high speed, carrying two persons, and hit Navya and another girl. The motorcyclist fell. They sustained injuries. The driver of the motorcycle was identified as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21185 ) Nandan Sharma. The pillion rider was identified as Raj Kumar. The name of the other injured was found to be Kritika. 4. The copy of the compromise deed shows that the compromise has been effected between Navya (minor) through her natural guardian/father-Inder Singh, and the petitioner. The FIR shows that three persons had sustained injuries, namely Navya, Kritika and Raj Kumar. The compromise has only been effected with Navya. Further, no compromise has been effected with Complainant Vyas Dev, who had reported the matter to the police. It is impermissible to quash the FIR based on a partial compromise effected between the parties. Since, all the parties are not before the Court, therefore the FIR cannot be quashed based on the compromise effected with one of the parties. 5. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 6. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, with the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 4th July, 2025 (Saurav pathania)