SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
JOGINDER PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CRMMO/235/2026



Petitioner Advocates:Ashok Kumar Verma ,Respondent Advocate: AG Piyush Chandel AG

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:13740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHI.MLA

Cr.MMO No.235 of 2026

Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

_________________________________________________________._________________

Joginder Pal ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents

Coram f

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

__________________________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashrok Kumar Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. uRajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional

Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,

oDeputy Advocate General, for State.

Mr. Piyush Chandel, Advocate, for respondents

C No.2 and 3.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sh arma, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS,

2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR

iNo.322 of 2023, dated 21.12.2023, registered at Police Station Haroli,

District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC

and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, along with consequential

proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of

compromise.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are

that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be

lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Mr. Harminedr Singh (hereinafter,

::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2026 19:00:09 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2026:HHC:13740

2

‘complainant’), who alleged that on 21.12.2023, while he wa.s at his

vegetable shop, Panjwar, one Brezza car bearing registration No.HP-36-E-

1054, hit one white colored scooty bearing No.HP-19-D-8537, being driven

by the deceased Kashmir Singh, as a result thereof, he fell on the ground

and suffered multiple injuries. Though petitfioner with the help of local

people took the deceased to the nearby hospital, but unfortunately he

succumbed to the injuries. In the afore background, FIR, detailed

hereinabove, came to be lodged argainst the petitioner.

3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already

presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be

taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute

amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as

such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings,

praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent

iproceedings pending before the competent Court of law.

4. In terms of order dated 30.03.2026, respondent-State has filed

status report, which is silent about compromise. In terms of afore order,

complainant as well as respondent No.3, i.e. wife of deceased, have come

present and are being represented by Mr. Piyush Chandel, Advocate.

Complainant states on oath that he of his own volition and without there

being any external pressure, has come before this Court to make

statement. He states that parties have entered into compromise, whereby

::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2026 19:00:09 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

2026:HHC:13740

3

they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. .He states

that though he had no occasion to see the accident with his eyes, but he

had reached on the spot after having heard loud noise and as such, he is

not in a position to state whether accident occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner or not. Hfe states that since family of

deceased has already settled the matter with the petitioner, who has duly

compensated them, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and

shall have no objection in caser FIR in question as well as consequential

proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set

aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR.

While admitting cContents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits

his signatures thereupon. His statement made on oath is taken on record.

5. Respondent No.3, i.e. wife of the deceased, also stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top