2026:HHC:28407 _____________________________ 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. 315 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.06.2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Rohit 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. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 0082 of 2025, dated 30.11.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 125(a) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 187 of 2 2026:HHC:28407 Motor Vehicles (M.V. Act) at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 are known to each other. They want to maintain cordial relations between them. They have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person and they do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the present petition. 3. Statements of informant-Manu and injured Kanshi Ram were recorded on 22.04.2026, in which they stated that they had compromised the matter with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person. They do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise and they have no objection in case the F.I.R as well as 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 asserting that the matter was pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. on 11.06.2026 for the service of the accused. 3 2026:HHC:28407 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 125(a) and 281 of BNS which corresponds to Sections 337 and 279 of IPC, respectively. 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 based on compromise. Further, this Court has already quashed the F.I.R. 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 these judgments are binding upon this Court. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 0082 of 2025, dated 30.11.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS and Section 187 of the M.V. Act at Police Station Arki, 4 2026:HHC:28407 District Solan, H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. are ordered to be 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 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 14th July, 2026 (ravinder)