VINOD KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CRMMO/174/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 25th March 2026.
CNR: HPHC010097742026
Filing Number
CRMMO/1496/2026
Filing Date
06-Mar-2026
Registration No
CRMMO/174/2026
Registration Date
12-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VINOD KUMAR(Not Applicable)
Adv. Ganesh Barowalia,Verender kumar,Verender kumar, ,Verender kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)
Adv. ,Gambhir Singh,AG 1123
-
2.Deepak(Not Applicable)
-
3.Pooja Rani(Not Applicable)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF
Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed FIR No. 153/2023 against Vinod Kumar for rash and negligent driving (IPC Sections 279 & 337, Motor Vehicles Act Section 181) based on a compromise settlement between the accused and the complainant/injured parties. The court found the alleged offences to be petty, not heinous, and that conviction was remote given the parties' settlement and withdrawal of prosecution; it applied Supreme Court guidelines permitting FIR quashing in non-serious cases where parties amicably resolve disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
Notice Before Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
-
06-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRMMO/174/2026
Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed FIR No. 153/2023 against Vinod Kumar for rash and negligent driving (IPC Sections 279 & 337, Motor Vehicles Act Section 181) based on a compromise settlement between the accused and the complainant/injured parties. The court found the alleged offences to be petty, not heinous, and that conviction was remote given the parties' settlement and withdrawal of prosecution; it applied Supreme Court guidelines permitting FIR quashing in non-serious cases where parties amicably resolve disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts