2025:HHC:38112 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 636 of 2025 Reserved on: 31.10.2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Pawan ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.2 : Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2024, dated 12.6.2024, registered at Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lodged by respondent No.2. 2. The FIR (Annexure P1) states that an accident occurred involving a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-52C-1651, in 2025:HHC:38112 2 which Pawan Verma (present petitioner) and Krishna Devi (since deceased) were travelling. Krishna Devi succumbed to her injuries, and Section 304-A of the IPC was added to the present case. The present petition mentions that the matter has been settled between informant, Devender son of Bhagat Ram and the present petitioner. The petitioner did not mention the details of the legal heirs; however, the status report mentions that Devender Singh, Sheela Devi and Manju Devi are the legal representatives of Krishna Devi. However, Sheela Devi and Manju Devi are not signatories to the compromise with the petitioner. Thus, it is not possible to quash the FIR based on the compromise made with one of the legal heirs. The other legal heirs have a right to proceed with the matter for the death of their predecessor, and such a right cannot be taken away without hearing them and without their consent. 3. Therefore, the FIR No. 28 of 2024, dated 12.6.2024, registered at Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A cannot be quashed based on the compromise effected between the petitioner, informant and one of the legal heirs. 2025:HHC:38112 3 4. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 5. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 13th November 2025 (Chander)