2025:HHC:10438 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 91 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.04.2025. Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 Vishal Jaswal ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & other ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 259 of 2017, dated 05.11.2017, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 181 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘M.V. Act’) at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. and criminal proceedings bearing Police Challan No.146 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. vs Vishal pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kullu, H.P. 2 2025:HHC:10438 2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties. The injured agreed that the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same be quashed because of the compromise. The parties want to reside peacefully and harmoniously. Hence, the petition. 3. Statement of informant Vipin Kumar and injured Arun Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were recorded on 03.03.2025, in which they stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person and they have no objection in case F.I.R as well proceedings arising out of the same F.I.R. are 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, 337, and 338 of IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HHC 531, Vikas Huda vs State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 are based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. It was submitted that the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be quashed because of 3 2025:HHC:10438 the compromise. This submission is not acceptable. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act in Rajender Thakur versus State of H.P. 2022 STPL 10700 HP, Harish Sharma versus State of H.P., 2022 STPL 10696 HP, Suresh Kumar versus State of H.P., 2019 STPL 1580 HP and Suresh Kumar versus State of H.P, 2019 STPL 4144 HP, based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 259 of 2017, dated 05.11.2017, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and Sections 181 and 185 of M.V. Act at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.and criminal proceedings bearing Police Challan No.146 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. vs Vishal pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kullu, H.P are quashed. 8. 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 4 2025:HHC:10438 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 22nd April, 2025 (ravinder)