2026:HHC:7138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1119 of 2025 Reserved on: 2.3.2026 Date of Decision: 13.3.2026. Parshottam Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Tanishq Chandel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Mr Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 45 of 2023, dated 5.4.2023, registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:7138 consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise after the registration of the FIR with the intervention of the local people of the area to maintain cordial relations. The informant/victim does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise, and he has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed. Hence the petition. 3. Statement of the informant/victim, Sanjay Kumar, was recorded on 1.12.2025, in which he stated that his vehicle was damaged in the incident. He had entered into a compromise with the accused, and he had had no objection in case the present FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise effected between the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The FIR shows that the parties had entered into a compromise on the spot, and the accused had agreed to repair the informant’s vehicle. The matter was reported to the police when the accused failed to fulfil his compromise. Therefore, the 3 2026:HHC:7138 dispute is regarding the damage to the vehicle and no injury to any person is involved. 6. The FIR has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act. 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 already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 181, 187 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. These judgments are binding on this Court. 7. In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 45 of 2023, dated 5.4.2023, registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act is ordered to be quashed. Consequent 4 2026:HHC:7138 upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are also ordered to be quashed. 8. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous 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 the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 13th March, 2026 (Chander)