Neetesh Jain Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

2026:HHC:22399

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 162 of 2026 Reserved on: 19.05.2026 Date of Decision: 16.06.2026

¶4

Neetesh Jain ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

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

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr Arun Kumar Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State.

¶10

Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.12 of 2024, dated 28.01.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles (M.V.) Act at Police Station Dhera, District Kangra, H.P. and

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

2026:HHC:22399

¶16

consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise.

¶17

It has been asserted that the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of the respectable person of the society and family members of the parties. The informant/injured does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the present petition.

¶18

Statement of informant-Birbal was recorded on 06.04.2026, in which he stated that he had compromised the matter with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person and he had no objection in case the F.I.R as well as proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed.

¶19

The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the investigation.

¶20

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

¶21

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 HHC 531, Vikas Huda vs State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar

¶22

2026:HHC:22399

¶23

2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 based on compromise. Likewise, this Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 187 of M.V. Act in Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P.2022(1) Him

¶24

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). These judgments are binding upon this Court.

¶25

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 12 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. are quashed.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

2026:HHC:22399

¶29

but, if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.

¶30

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶31

16^th June, 2026 (ravinder)

Neetesh Jain v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetesh Jain v. State of Hp and Others

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

State of Hp Vs Kikkar Singh

State Vs Anwar Singh

Naresh Vs State

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Vishal Dharwal and Others Vs Raman Kumari