1 2025:HHC:39123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 756 of 2025. Reserved on: 31.10.2025. Date of Decision: 19.11.2025. Tarun Duhan ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Dikken Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has )led the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 1.4.2022, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of o0ences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 185 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) and the consequential proceedings based on a compromise e0ected between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39123 2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of the respectable members of society. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise. 3. The statements of the informant, Basant Kumar and the injured Manoj Kumar were recorded on 21.8.2025. One of the injured, Subhash Guleria, stated that he had not sustained any injury. 4. I have heard Mr Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State and Mr Dikken Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. 4. Mr Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that one of the 3 2025:HHC:39123 injured, Subhash Kumar, has denied that he had sustained any injuries. Therefore, there is no compromise between him and the petitioner. It is to be determined by the learned Trial Court whether Subhash Chand Guleria had sustained injuries and this fact cannot be adjudicated during the present proceedings. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. Mr Dikken Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, adopted the submissions of Mr Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The FIR reads that the petitioner was driving an Innova vehicle bearing registration No.HR-20-AR-0047 and hit the informant Basant Kumar, Manoj and Subhash Chand Guleria. They sustained injuries in the incident. Basant Kumar and Manoj have appeared before the Court and expressed their desire to compromise the matter; however, one of the injured, Subhash Chand Guleria, stated that he had not sustained any injuries in the incident. Therefore, the allegations in the FIR, whether Subhash Chand Guleria had sustained any injury in the incident or not, are required to be proved. 8. An FIR cannot be quashed in part, therefore, it is impermissible to quash the FIR based on the statements made by 4 2025:HHC:39123 Basant and Manoj Kumar. Since Subhash Chand Guleria, one of the injured stated that he had not sustained any injuries and has not stated that he had entered into a compromise, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed based on the compromise e0ected between some of the parties. 9. Consequently, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 10. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th November, 2025 (Chander)