` 2026:HHC:38627 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 562 of 2026 Reserved on: 7.9.2026 Date of Decision: 11.9.2026. Akshay Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shivanshu Attri, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 41 of 2020, dated 6.3.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR based on a compromise between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:38627 2. It has been asserted that the sole legal representative of the deceased and the petitioner have entered into a compromise after the petitioner apologised many times and expressed remorse for the incident. The sole legal representative of the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise; hence, the petition has been filed. 3. The statement of Prem Singh, the sole legal representative of the deceased Chhote Lal, was recorded on 31.07.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily, without any influence from any person, and that he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR in terms of the compromise between the parties. A copy of the legal heir certificate has also been placed on record, wherein Prem Singh has been shown as the sole legal representative of Chhote Lal. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC in Avinash Singh Rana vs. State of H.P., 2023 STPL 3181 HP, Amit Singla vs. State of H.P., 2022 STPL 13806 HP, Mayank vs. State of H.P., 2021 (2) Shim. LC 980, Dr Subhash Thakur vs. State of 3 2026:HHC:38627 H.P. 2021 STPL 6332 HP and Rajvinder Sharma vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3) Shim. LC 1781 based on a compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 41 of 2020, dated 6.3.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. is quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are also quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 8. 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 11th September, 2026 (Chander)