2025:HHC:38818 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 670 of 2025 Reserved on: 8.10.2025 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 Sanjay Kumar ...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 Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For respondent No.1/State : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. For respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr Surila Sangam, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has 昀椀led the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 117 of 2025, dated 27.5.2025, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 187 and 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) based on the compromise e昀昀ected between the parties. It has been asserted that the parties have 2025:HHC:38818 2 compromised the matter after the registration of FIR with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the petition. 2. The statements of informant Abhishek Kumar, and injured Kamal Raj Verma and Kriti Kumar, were recorded on 30.8.2025, in which they stated that they had compromised the matter with the accused voluntarily without any in昀氀uence from any person, and they had no objection if the FIR is quashed based on the compromise e昀昀ected between the parties. 3. Heard. 4. The o昀昀ence punishable under Section 281 of BNS corresponds to Section 279 of IPC, and the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 125(a) of BNS corresponds to Section 337 of IPC. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC in Avinash Singh Rana vs. State of H.P., 2023 STPL 3181 HP, Amit Singla vs. State of H.P., 2022 STPL 13806 HP, Mayank vs. State of H.P., 2021 (2) Shim. LC 980, Dr Subhash Thakur vs. State of H.P. 2021 STPL 6332 HP and Rajvinder Sharma vs. State of H.P. 2019 2025:HHC:38818 3 (3) Shim. LC 1781 based on a compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 5. It was submitted that the FIR cannot be quashed for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 181 and 187 of the MV Act. This Court has quashed the FIR registered for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 181 and 187 of the MV Act in Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P. 2022 (1) Him L.R. (HC) 81, Vijender Mehta and another Vs. State of H.P. and another (2023) ACC 488 (H.P.) and Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others II (2023) ACC 651 (H.P.), and these judgments are binding upon this Court. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 117 of 2025, dated 27.5.2025, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS and Sections 187 and 181 of MV Act is quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner/accused in pursuance thereof are also quashed. 2025:HHC:38818 4 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 8. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certi昀椀ed copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 18th November 2025 (Chander)