2026:HHC:34826 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 830 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.08.2026 Date of Decision: 19.08.2026 Jaspreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondent _______________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Vikram Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.4 : Mr Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 1 of 2026 dated 01.01.2026 registered at Police Station Shimla Sadar, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125 (a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) based on a compromise. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34826 2. It has been stated that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the informant. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. 3. The statement of the informant was recorded on 14.08.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily and had no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. A perusal of the FIR (annexure P1) shows that the informant was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP10B-1964 with Prateek, Shreya and Sarika, when another car bearing registration No. PB-31X-3131 hit the informant's car. The informant's car suffered extensive damage. 6. Thus, as per the FIR, the lives of Prateek, Shreya and Sarika were in danger when the car was hit by another car being driven by the petitioner. However, the other occupants of the car have not been arrayed as parties, and it was submitted that they have not sustained any injury, and they are not necessary parties. This submission is only stated to be rejected. Section 281 does not provide for any injury to a person but punishes a person who drives a vehicle 3 2026:HHC:34826 in a rash or negligent manner to endanger the life of another. Therefore, endangering the life of another is the sine qua non of attracting Section 281 of the BNS and not the causing of the injuries. Hence, the mere fact that the other occupants of the vehicle had not sustained any injury will not mean that their consent is not required for quashing the FIR based on a compromise. The petitioner has not produced the other occupants before the Court to record their consent and has not arrayed them as parties. Hence, the petition cannot be allowed in their absence and is dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th August, 2026 (Nikita)