2025:HHC:14184 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1234 of 2024 Reserved on: 06.05.2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025. Gagan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohammad A. Safee, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 149 of 2019, dated 23.9.2019, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR. It has been asserted that the matter has been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:14184 amicably settled between the petitioner and the informant. The continuation of the proceedings would lead to the wastage of time of the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequent proceedings be quashed. 2. The petition was opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the FIR were reproduced. It was asserted that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC is non-compoundable, which has far-reaching consequences and the quashing of FIR will send the wrong signal to society. Hence, the FIR should not be quashed. 3. The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 3.4.2025, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. He did not want to proceed further with the matter because of the compromise having been effected between the parties. 4. It was submitted by Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, that the 3 2025:HHC:14184 offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is against society, which cannot be compromised by the public servant. This Court should not exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. This Court has already quashed the proceedings under Sections 353, 332 and 333 of IPC in Sumit Kumar Vs. State of H.P. (2020) SCC Online HP 436, Sections 323, 353 and 506 of IPC in Murari Lal Vs. State of H.P. (2023) HHC 628, and Sections 341 and 353 of IPC in Rakesh Kumar and another Vs. State of H.P., Cr.MMO No. 700 of 2019, decided on 1.1.2020. These judgments are binding upon this Court. In view of the binding precedents of this Court, the submission that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC cannot be quashed based on the compromise cannot be accepted. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 149 of 2019, dated 23.9.2019, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. is quashed. Consequent upon the quashing 4 2025:HHC:14184 of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are also quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 8. 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 Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th May, 2025 (Chander)