Allowed¶16

Kartik Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Aug 2025CRMMO/526/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise/private settlement; informant/injured consent statement; BNS 2023 Sections 281 and 125(a) (road-related offences corresponding to IPC 279 and 337); Section 187 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Police Station West Shimla; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Cr. MMO; Justice Rakesh Kainthla; binding precedent Sushant 2023 HHC 531, Vikas Huda 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh 2023 HLR 384, Nishant 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45; consequential proceedings quashed; not approved for reporting.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 75 of 2025, dated 14.05.2025, registered at Police Station West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR; pending applications, if any, disposed of likewise. ¶16

Kartik Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 75 of 2025, registered under Sections 281 and 125(a) BNS and Section 187 MV Act, and consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

¶13

Court's answer

The offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS correspond to Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC respectively.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

This Court had already quashed FIRs registered for these offences based on compromise in Sushant, Vikas Huda, Kulwidner Singh and Nishant, and those judgments are binding on this Court.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed; FIR No. 75 of 2025 dated 14.05.2025 registered at Police Station West Shimla as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous petition (Cr. MMO No. 526 of 2025), High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Justice Rakesh Kainthla, sole judge; decided 07.08.2025; not approved for reporting). FIR No. 75 of 2025 (14.05.2025), Police Station West Shimla, registered for offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was quashed along with consequential proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement. The informant/injured stated on oath (25.06.2025) that she had compromised the matter voluntarily and had no objection to quashing. The Court observed that the BNS offences correspond to Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, and followed its own earlier compromise-based quashing decisions (Sushant vs State of H.P.; Vikas Huda vs State of H.P.; Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar; Nishant vs. State), expressly terming them binding. Petition allowed and disposed of together with pending applications.

¶1

2025:HHC:26562

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 526 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.07.2025 Date of Decision:07.08.2025

¶4

Kartik Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sankalap Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 75 of 2025, dated 14.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 at Police Station West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

¶9

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

¶12

It has been asserted that the matter has been amicably settned between the parties and complainant does not want to proceed with the matter based on compromise.

¶13

Statement of informant/injured was recorded on 25.06.2025, in which she stated that she had compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person and she has no objection in case F.I.R as well proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

¶15

In the present case the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS which correspond to Sections 279 and 337of IPC, respectively. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of aforesaid offences 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 based on compromise . These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶16

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 75 of 2025, dated 14.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS, 2023 (BNS) and Section 187 of M.V.Act at Police Station West Shimla, District

¶17

¶18

Shimla, H.P. as well as consequential proceedings arising out of said F.I.R. are quashed.

¶19

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 07^th August, 2025 (ravinder)

Kartik Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Vaidya Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Swaroop Chand Vs State of Hp

Chhabil Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Chet Ram Vs Harvinder Singh

Gourav Kumar Vs State of Hp

Nikhil Aggarwal and Another Vs the State of Hp and Another