2026:HHC:13588 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No : 1154 of 2025. Reserved on : 17.03.2026. Date of Decision: 27.04.2026. Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Parv Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr Arun Kaushal, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR No. 246 of 2008, dated 07.10.2008, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act) at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. and subsequent proceedings arising out of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:13588 FIR pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner went abroad after the registration of the FIR to earn his livelihood. The Trial could not proceed further in the absence of the petitioner, and the Court had to issue a proclamation requiring the petitioner’s presence. The petitioner came to know about the proclamation when he received a letter dated 19.06.2025 mentioning the pendency of the FIR. The petitioner contacted the victim and resolved the misunderstanding with him. The victim compromised the matter with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed. 3. The statement of the injured/victim, Sanjay Kumar, was recorded on 01.01.2006, in which he stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily without any influence from any person. Statement of the victim Naresh Kumar was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 3 2026:HHC:13588 No.2, Una, H.P., as per the direction of this Court. Naresh Kumar stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and he had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise between the parties. 4. I have heard Mr Parv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and Mr Arun Kaushal, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320(2) of the Cr. P.C. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLJ 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR 384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 based on compromise. This Court has quashed the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 181 of the MV Act in Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P. 2022 (1) Him L.R. (HC) 81, 4 2026:HHC:13588 Vijender Mehta and another Vs. State of H.P. and another (2023) ACC 488 (H.P.) and Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others II (2023) ACC 651 (H.P.). This Court quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 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. These judgments are binding upon this Court. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 246 of 2008, dated 07.10.2008, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous 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, 5 2026:HHC:13588 but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge __April, 2026 (Nikita)