____________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 93 of 2025 Reserved on: 001.05.2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 Vimal Rana ....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. Y.P.Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. For respondents : : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1/State. Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for the respondents No.2 and 3 and for Rangita Kumari (mother of deceased) Rakesh Kainthla,Judge The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0029 of 2024, dated 20.04.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Tahliwal, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. and the 2 consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R based on compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the accident had occurred on the spur of movement and there is no fault of the petitioner. The father and natural guardian of the child settled the dispute with the petitioner. A claim petition was also field against the petitioner, in which a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- was awarded to the parents. Hence, the present petition. 3. The statements of informant and father of the victim were recorded on 21.03.2025 and mother of the victim was recorded on 09.04.2025 in which they have stated that the matter had been compromised between the parties voluntarily without any influence from any person and they have no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioner/accused is ordered to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLC 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR 384 and Nishant 3 vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 and others based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 0029 of 2024 dated 20.4.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC at Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, H.P. . is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also ordered to be quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 9. 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 certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 07th May, 2025. (ravinder)