Anand Bansal vs State Of HP And Ors

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 49 of 2022, dated 19.7.2022, registered at Police Station Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of it and pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. based on the compromise effected between the parties.

It has been asserted that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable persons of the area. The informant and the victim do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Hence the petition.

Statements of the informant Satish Kumar and the victims Pooja Garg, Rimjhim Garg and Sachin Bansal were recorded on 6.4.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise effected between the parties.

Pooja Garg also stated that she had compromised the matter on behalf of her minor daughter, Pranshi, who had sustained injuries in the accident. Section 320(4)(i) of Cr.P.C. provides that when a person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence is under the age of 18 years, any person to contract on his/her behalf may compound the offence on behalf of such person. In the present case, the mother has compromised the matter on behalf of the minor daughter. Hence, she is permitted to compound the offence.

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. 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. These judgments are binding on this Court.

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 49 of 2022, dated 19.7.2022, registered at Police Station Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and the 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 copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.