IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 660 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.9.2025. State of H.P. ...Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat on 14.12.2024, the statements of Pawan Kumar and Vijay Kumar were recorded that they had compromised the matter with each other; hence the matter was disposed of as having been compromised. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. The State filed the present petition asserting that one of the injured Anurag was not present before the Lok Adalat and the matter could not have been reconciled in his absence. 3. The State was asked to seek instructions whether Anurag is interested in pursuing the matter or not. The State has filed the statement of Anurag recorded by the police that he had no objection for the compromise. 4. All the offences mentioned in the police challan are compoundable. The grievance of the State that offences could not have been compounded without the consent of Anurag now stands redressed because Anurag has shown his consent for the compromise. Therefore, it is not a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 4th September, 2025 (Chander)