_____________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 877 of 2026 Reserved on: 29.09.2026 Date of Decision: 06.10.2016 Sahib Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Ms Kalunta Devi, Advocate, vice Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3/State. Ms Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for respondents No.4. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 45 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 125(a), 125(b) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and 2 Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) at police station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable persons of the area and family members of both the parties. They want to maintain cordial relations with each other, and the informant/victim does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the petition. 3. The statement of informant/victim Parveen Kumar was recorded on 25.08.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. 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. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. 3 registered for the commission of the 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 and FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act 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, based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 45 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) of BNS and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are 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 4 authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but, if required, may verify passing of the order from the website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 06th October, 2026 (Ravinder)