Parshottam Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Parshottam Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 45 of 2023, dated 5.4.2023, registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Section 279 IPC and Section 187 MV Act), and of all consequential criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused; petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any; parties permitted to produce a downloaded copy of the judgment before the authorities concerned in place of a certified copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 45 of 2023, dated 5.4.2023, registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and Section 187 MV Act, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

The dispute between the parties relates solely to damage to the informant's vehicle; no injury to any person is involved.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has already quashed FIRs registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and under Sections 181, 187 and 196 of the MV Act on the basis of compromise (in Sushant, Vikas Huda, Kulwidner Singh, Nishant, Rajender Thakur and Akshay Kumar), and those judgments are binding on this Court.

Key takeaways

In view of the binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 45 of 2023, dated 5.4.2023, registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and Section 187 MV Act, is ordered to be quashed.ratio¶24
Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof are also ordered to be quashed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on compromise — Cr. MMO No. 1119 of 2025 (2026:HHC:7138). The petitioner-accused sought quashing of FIR No. 45 of 2023, dated 5.4.2023, P.S. Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., registered for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and Section 187 MV Act, and of consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise arrived at with the intervention of local people. The FIR itself recorded an on-the-spot compromise whereby the accused agreed to repair the informant's damaged vehicle, the complaint having been made only on his failure to do so; no injury to any person was involved. The informant/victim, Sanjay Kumar, affirmed the compromise and his no-objection in his statement recorded on 1.12.2025. Following its earlier rulings — 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; Nishant vs. State, 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45; Rajender Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others, 2022 STPL 10700 HP; Akshay Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and others, 2022 STPL 9456 HP — which the Court held binding, the petition was allowed, the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings were quashed, and parties were permitted to rely on a downloaded copy of the judgment. Not approved for reporting.

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	Versus	…. Petitioner
State of HP & anr.		…. Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner	: Mr Advo	Tanishq cate.	Chandel,
For Respondent No.1-State	: Mr Addi	Lokender tional Advoc	Kutlehria, ate General.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr Advo	Jagmohan cate.	Sharma,

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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)