1 ( 2025:HHC:25362 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.1309 of 2024 Reserved on: 23.07.2025 Date of Decision: 30.07.2025 Pankaj Dhiman ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For respondent No.4 : Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 0016 of 2023, dated 07.02.2023, registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) & Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2 ( 2025:HHC:25362 ) 2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise after the institution of the FIR with the intervention of respectable members of both families. They want to maintain a cordial relationship with each other. Hence, the petition. 3. Statement of the informant Om Prakash was recorded on 27.05.2025, and the statement of injured Anil Kumar was recorded on 22.04.2025, in which they stated that they had compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they have no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise. 4. I have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State and Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, learned counsel, for respondent No.4/informant. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person, and no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the present proceedings. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and 3 ( 2025:HHC:25362 ) the FIR be ordered to be quashed based on the compromise. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Cr. MMO No.302 of 2024, titled Amandeep Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 30.05.2024, Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. [2024: HHC:9324], Cr. MMO No.683 of 2019, titled Nikhil Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 03.12.2019 and Naveen Negi Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. [2025:HHC:10441], in support of his submission. 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State submitted that the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act, is a regulatory offence meant for the benefit of the public, which cannot be quashed, based on the compromise effected between the parties. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, learned counsel for respondent No.4/informant, submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4 ( 2025:HHC:25362 ) 9. Prima facie, the submission of Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3/State has some force that the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act is regulatory which cannot be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties, however, as advised at present, this Court is bound by the precedents and in view of the judgments of Amandeep’s Case, Sandeep Kumar’s Case & Nikhil Kumar’s Case & Naveen Negi’s Case (supra), the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 0016 of 2023, dated 07.02.2023, registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC & Section 181 of MV Act and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are ordered to be quashed. The question whether the offence punishable under Section 181 of the M.V. Act can be quashed, based on the compromise, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 11. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of 5 ( 2025:HHC:25362 ) Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th July 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)