Stare decisis binds court to quash FIR under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 on compromise, following consistent precedents, despite regulatory nature argued by State.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 110 of 2024, dated 23.6.2024. registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the compromise between the parties. It has been asserted that the parties have settled the matter on 1.10.2024 with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The informant/injured does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

2. The statements of the informant Ashok Kumar and injured Jagdish Kumar were recorded on 20.6.2025, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they did not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise.

3. I have heard Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State and Ms Shrutika Chauhan, learned vice counsel representing respondents No.4 and 5.

4. Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise between themselves. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the present proceedings. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise. He relied upon the judgments of Pankaj Dhiman Vs. State of H.P. and others 2025:HHC:25362, Anoop Gupta Vs. Vandana and another, along with connected matter 2019::8041, Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H.P. and others 2018:HHC:8226, Arjun Vs. State of H.P. and another , Cr.MMO No. 1306 of 2022, decided on 3.4.2023 and Gopal Verma Vs. State of H.P. and others 2024:HHC:1734 in support of his submission.

5. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the police found after investigation that the petitioner was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence, which is a regulatory offence that has been enacted for the benefit of the public. It should not be quashed based on a compromise. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. Ms Shrutika Chauhan, learned vice counsel representing respondents No.4 and 5, adopted the submissions of Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. This Court had quashed the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 181 and 187 of the MV Act in Anup Gupta Vs. Vandana 2019:HHC:8041, Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inter alia, in Madan Lal Vs. State of H.P. 2018:(8)226, Arun Vs. State of HP. Cr.MMO No. 1306 of 2022, decided on 3.4.2023 and Gopal Verma v. State of H.P. 2024:HHC:1734. This Court indicated in Pankaj Dhiman Vs State of HP. 2025:HHC25362 that the offence punishable under of MV Act is regulatory, which prima facie cannot be quashed on the compromise; however, as advised, the Court was bound by the precedents and proceeded to quash the matter. The question whether the offence punishable under of the MV Act could be quashed based on a compromise was left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

9. The principle stare decisis (stand by the thing decided) demands that a Court should decide a matter in the same way that it had decided in the past, even if the membershi