Ritika Thakur @ Ritika Prabodh Gaikwad Vs the… — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Ritika Thakur @ Ritika Prabodh Gaikwad Vs the… — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 165 of 2009, dated 29.8.2009, registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 181 MV Act, along with all consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused; parties permitted to produce a judgment copy downloaded from the High Court website instead of a certified copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 165 of 2009, dated 29.8.2009, registered at Police Station Shimla West for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 181 MV Act, and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties, given that the informant and victims do not wish to proceed further.

Court's answer

The informant/victim (Vikas Dholta @ Vikas Dahalta) and victims Bhagat Singh Thakur and Dalip stated they had entered into the compromise with the accused voluntarily and had no objection to quashing the FIR as per the compromise.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has previously quashed FIRs under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC (Sushant; Vikas Huda; Kulwidner Singh; Nishant) and under Section 181 MV Act (Rajender Thakur; Akshay Kumar) based on compromise, and these judgments are binding on this Court.

Key takeaways

In view of the binding precedents, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 165 of 2009, dated 29.8.2009, registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., is ordered to be quashed.ratio¶22
The consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance of the said FIR are also ordered to be quashed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), single judge (Rakesh Kainthla, J.), Cr. MMO No. 391 of 2026, decided 2.6.2026: petition to quash FIR No. 165 of 2009 (29.8.2009, P.S. Shimla West) registered for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 181 MV Act was allowed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. Statements of the informant/victim (Vikas Dholta @ Vikas Dahalta) and victims (Bhagat Singh Thakur and Dalip), recorded on 4.5.2026 and 8.5.2026, confirmed the compromise was voluntary and that they had no objection to quashing. Following six prior Himachal Pradesh decisions quashing comparable FIRs on compromise — 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. 2022 STPL 10700 HP; Akshay Kumar and others Vs. State of HP 022 STPL 9456 HP — which the Court held binding, the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner-accused were ordered quashed. Parties permitted to produce a website-downloaded copy of the judgment in lieu of a certified copy.

2026:HHC:21015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 391 of 2026 Reserved on: 12.5.2026 Date of Decision: 2.6.2026.

Ritika Thakur @ Ritika Prabodh Gaikwad …. Petitioner Versus State of HP and anr. …. Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner	: Mr Amardeep Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 165 of 2009, dated 29.8.2009, registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) and consequential proceedings arising out

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

2

2026:HHC:21015

of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and the informant and the victims do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the petition.

Statements of the informant/victim, Vikas Dholta @ Vikas Dahalta, victims Bhagat Singh Thakur and Dalip were recorded on 4.5.2026 and 8.5.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily and had no objection to quashing the FIR 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 has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 181 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

3

2026:HHC:21015

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 181 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 022 STPL 9456 HP. These judgments are binding on this Court.

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 165 of 2009, dated 29.8.2009, registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the PC, and Section 181 of the MV Act and the consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof 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

4

2026:HHC:21015

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

2nd June, 2026 (Chander)