The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition to quash an FIR registered for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Section 181 MV Act. The quashing was granted based on an amicable settlement between the parties and reliance on binding precedents where similar FIRs were quashed.
FIR No. 161 of 2023 and consequential proceedings quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:14421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 45 of 2026 Reserved on: 9.4.2026 Date of Decision: 5.5.2026.
Harsh Rana …. Petitioner Versus State of HP and others. …. Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioner | : Ms. Advo |
Narvada Kashyap, cate. |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1-State | : Mr. Addi |
Lokender Kutlehria, tional Advocate General. |
| For Respondents No.2 & 3 | : Ms. Advo |
Vandana Thakur, cate. |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 161 of 2023, dated 14.6.2023, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2026:HHC:14421
(MV Act) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.
H.P. 2023 HLJ 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009,
3
2026:HHC:14421
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 committing 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.
4
2026:HHC:14421
copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the
Website of the High Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR for offences under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 181 MV Act should be quashed based on a compromise between parties?
Whether binding precedents support quashing of such FIRs registered for similar minor offences?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushant vs State of H.P.Referred¶18
Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLJ 531
Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P.Referred¶18
Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009
Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush KumarReferred¶22
Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR 384
Nishant vs. StateReferred¶22
Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45
Rajender Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and othersReferred¶22
Rajender Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others 2022 STPL 10700 HP
Akshay Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and othersReferred¶22
Akshay Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and others 022 STPL 9456 HP
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harsh Rana
State of HP and others
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
