2026:HHC:25700 _____________________________ 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. 551 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.06.2026 Date of Decision 30.06.2026 Sagar ...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. Sameer Miyan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1. Mr. Pranav Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 to 6. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 280 of 2024, dated 07.12.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) & 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 181 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act) at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and the 2 2026:HHC:25700 consequential proceeding arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The informant and victim do not want to proceed further after the compromise between the parties. Hence, the petition. 3. Statements of the informant Aryan Diwan-victim, Anita Kumari, Ram Dassi, Sukh Dei-injured were recorded 28.11.2025, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person. 4. Statement of injured-Gulshan Kumar Diwan was recorded on 29.04.2026, in which he stated that he had not sustained any injury in the accident. 5. The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the investigation. 6. Heard. 7. As per the F.I.R. Anita Kumari had sustained injuries but Gulshan Kumar had not sustained any injury. Therefore, the statement made by him (Gulshan Kumar) that 3 2026:HHC:25700 he had not sustained any injury is factually correct. The other persons who had sustained injuries have entered into a compromise. 8. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 125(a), 125(b) and 281 of BNS which correspond to Sections 337, 338 and 279 of IPC, respectively and Sections 181 and 184 of M.V. Act. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of aforesaid offences 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, Ashish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another:2024: HHC16368 based on compromise and these judgments are binding on this Court. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and F.I.R. No. 280 of 2024, dated 07.12.2024, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) & 125(b) of IPC and Sections 181 and 184 of the M.V.Act and consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. are quashed. 4 2026:HHC:25700 10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 11. 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 30th June, 2026. (ravinder)