Tanzin Konchog Vs the State of Hp and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Tanzin Konchog Vs the State of Hp and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 58 of 2024, dated 5.3.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 504 IPC and Section 187 MV Act, and of the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR; petition disposed of along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 58 of 2024 (Sections 279, 337 and 504 IPC; Section 187 MV Act) and the consequential proceedings arising out of it should be allowed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

The offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has already quashed FIRs registered for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC (Sushant; Vikas Huda; Kulwidner Singh; Nishant) and FIRs under Section 187 of the MV Act (Rajender Thakur; Sohib Khan) based on compromise, and these judgments are binding on this Court.

Key takeaways

In view of these binding precedents, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 58 of 2024, dated 5.3.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 504 IPC and Section 187 MV Act, and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR – compromise between parties – Cr. MMO No. 1235 of 2025 (H.P. High Court, decided 5.5.2026, Rakesh Kainthla, Judge). Petition sought quashing of FIR No. 58 of 2024, dated 5.3.2024, PS Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 504 IPC and Section 187 MV Act, and consequential proceedings, based on compromise. Informant/victim Bhag Chand stated on 26.2.2026 that he entered into the compromise voluntarily and did not wish to proceed. The Court noted that the Section 504 IPC offence is compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and relied on its own prior orders quashing FIRs for Sections 279 and 337 IPC (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) and for Section 187 MV Act (Rajender Thakur Vs. State of HP 2022 STPL 10700 HP; Sohib Khan Vs. State of HP & anr. 2020 STPL 7704 HP), observing these judgments are binding. In view of these binding precedents, the petition was allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings were ordered to be quashed; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. Judgment not approved for reporting.

2026:HHC:14415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1235 of 2025

Reserved on: 8.4.2026

Date of Decision: 5.5.2026.

Tanzin Konchog	….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and another	….Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1-State	: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, Vice Mr. Narender Kumar Reddy, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 58 of 2024, dated 5.3.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 504 of the

1

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

2

2026:HHC:14415

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the victim and the petitioner. The victim does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

Statement of the informant/victim Bhag Chand was recorded on 26.2.2026, 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 after the compromise.

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

The offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. This Court has 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 HLJ 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P.

3

2026:HHC:14415

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 also quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act in Rajender Thakur Vs. State of HP 2022 STPL 10700 HP and Sohib Khan Vs. State of HP & anr. 2020 STPL 7704 HP . These judgments are binding on this Court.

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 58 of 2024, dated 5.3.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 504 of the IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are 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

4

2026:HHC:14415

copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the

Website of the High Court.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

5th May, 2026 (Chander)