2026:HHC:22393 _____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 157 of 2026 Reserved on: 18.05.2026 Date of Decision: 16.06.2026 Prince 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. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 to 3. Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 86 of 2019, dated 25.08.2019, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 and 196 of Motor Vehicles (M.V.) Act at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise. 2 2026:HHC:22393 2. It has been asserted that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectable persons of the area. Both the parties are known to each other and they are residing in the same area. They want to maintain cordial relationship. Hence, the present petition. 3. The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 20.03.2026, in which he stated that he had compromised the matter with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person and he has no objection in case the F.I.R and proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed. 4. The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the investigation. 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, 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 based on compromise. Further, this Court has already quashed the F.I.R. 3 2026:HHC:22393 registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V. 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 (HP) and Sandeep Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others II (2003) ACC 651 (H.P) and even this Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 196 of M.V. in Rajender Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others 2022 STPL 10700 HP and Akshay Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 9456 HP. These judgments are binding upon this Court. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No.86 of 2019, dated 25.08.2019, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sections 187 and 196 of M.V. Act at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. 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 4 2026:HHC:22393 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 16th June, 2026 (ravinder)