IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 154 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. H.S.Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2022, dated 09.02.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘M.V. Act’) at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. 2 2. It has been asserted that parties are known to each other. The parties have settled the matter amongst them with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. Hence, they do not want to proceed further with the present F.I.R. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the investigation. 4. The statements of the informant and injured have been recorded on 24.03.2025, in which they have stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence or coercion from any person and they do not want to proceed further with the matter and have also no objection in case F.I.R. as well as proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. 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 HHC 531, Vikas Huda vs 3 State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 7. It was submitted that the offence punishable under Section 185 of the M.V. Act cannot be quashed because of the compromise. This submission is not acceptable. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 185 of M.V.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. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 26 of 2022, dated 09.02.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 185 of M.V.Act at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 4 9. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 10. 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)