Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/171/2026 on 16 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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. 171 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.10.2026 Date of Decision: 16.10.2026. Rakesh Kumar
…. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and anr. …. Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr Yug Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Mr Raman Sharma, Vice Mr Ananya Kiran, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 132, dated 1.7.2017, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of it, based on a compromise between the parties.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. It has been asserted that the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily, without any influence from any person. They want to maintain cordial relationship with each other. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.
3. The statement of the informant, Kesar Singh, was recorded on 18.3.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily, without any influence from any person, and he did not want to proceed further with the matter.
4. The State has filed the status report mentioning that a car had hit the truck, and the car driver had sustained injuries. 3-4 persons were travelling in the car. The informant and Charanjeet Singh were travelling in the truck.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. It is apparent from the perusal of the status report that three to four persons were travelling in the car and the informant and Charanjeet Singh were travelling in the truck. Their lives were put in danger by the act of the accused. However, these persons have not been produced before the Court. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1724 that only the victim, namely, the person who has suffered loss or injury, could settle with the accused. Hence, it is impermissible to quash the FIR without the consent of the persons affected by the act of the accused. Since the victims have not been produced before the Court, the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the parties.
7. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
8. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th October, 2026 (Chander)