Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/612/2026 on 27 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 612 of 2026
Reserved on: 13.10.2026
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
Aniket Thakur
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others
.... Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the petitioner : Mr Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. For respondents
:
Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2 /State. Mr Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 45 of 2026, dated 06.05.2026, registered at Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.
Act) and consequential proceedings arising out of it, based on the compromise effected between the parties.
2. It has been asserted that Vedansh had sustained injuries in the incident. He succumbed to his injuries, and his father had compromised the matter with the petitioner on the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The informant and injured do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise, and they have no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise.
3. The statements of the informant Rajesh Kumar and Vanita Kumari and Sanjeev Kumar (parents of Vedansh) were recorded on 13.08.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person and they have no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties.
4. A legal heir certificate has also been filed on record, which states that Vanita Kumari is the legal heir of Vedansh. The State has filed a status report stating that the charge sheet was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Section 281, 125(a), 106(a) of BNS, and Sections 181 and 187 of the MV Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
6. The offences punishable under Section 281 and 106(a) correspond to Section 279 and 304A of the IPC respectively. The offence punishable under Section 125(a) is compoundable under Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Section 359(4) (b) of BNSS provides that when the person competent to compound the offence is dead, his legal representatives can also compound the offence; therefore, the legal representatives of Vedansh can compound the offence punishable under Section 125 (a) of the BNS.
7. This Court has quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, inter alia, 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. This Court has also quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106(a) of BNS in
Ramalingam Sambanth & ors. vs. State of H.P., 2023: HHC5908, Madhuri Saini & anr. vs. State of H.P. & others, CrMMO No. 885 of 2024, decided on 14th November, 2024. Further, the Delhi High Court quashed the F.I.R. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, inter alia, in Sunil Kumar Sharma & anr vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 Supreme (Online) (DEL) 830 and Inderjit Kaur & another vs. The State NCT of Delhi and ors. 2024 Supreme (Online)(Del) 5497.
8. This Court has also quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V. Act in Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P.2022(1) Him L.R. (HC) 81, Vijender Mehta and another vs. State of H.P. and another (2023) ACC 488 (HP) and Sandeep Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others II (2003) ACC 651 (H.P) and these judgments are binding upon this Court.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 45 of 2026, dated 06.05.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS and Section 187 of M.V. Act at Police Station
Bangana, District Una, H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are quashed.
10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.
11. 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
27th October, 2026
(Ravinder)