Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/893/2026 on 26 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. 893 of 2026
Reserved on: 13.10.2026
Date of Decision: 26. 10.2026
Neeraj Kumar
...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 Ritik Sharma, Advocate. For respondents
:
: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dalip Kumar, Advocate vice Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla,Judge
The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 224 of 2023, dated 17.10.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles (M.V. Act), at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. _______________
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of respectable person of the society. The informant/injured does not want to proceed further with the matter and had no objection for quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the parties.
3. The statement of the informant injured Alka was recorded on 01.09.2026, in which she stated that she had sustained injuries in the accident. She had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without an influence from any person and she had no objection for 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. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLC 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 and others. This Court 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.
6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 224 of 2023, dated 17.10.2023 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of the M.V. Act at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. 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 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
26th October, 2026. (ravinder)