Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28186 (HP)

GAURAV SHARMA AND ORS v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CRMMO/1267/2024 · 2025-05-02

Rakesh Kainthla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

_____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1267 of 2024 Decided on 02.05.2025 Gaurav Sharma & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : None. For the respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. None for respondents No. 2 to 4. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 198 of 2023, dated 30.10.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 326, 147, 148, 149 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. based on the compromise. 2. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the accused had inflicted an injury by a Darat on the head of the victim –Pawan Kumar and 2 also inflicted another injury on the left side of his stomach. The manner in which the injuries were caused and the weapon was used in the crime clearly shows that had the death of said person been caused the accused would have been guilty of murder caused by sharp edged weapon, as such injury caused on the head of the victim, a vital part of the body, therefore, prima facie, an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is made out. It was held in Ravi & others vs. State of H.P. & another 2024 HHC 471, that F.I.R. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC cannot be quashed based on the compromise entered between the parties because an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is heinous, which is not committed against an individual but the society. 3. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 4. The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2nd May, 2025 (ravinder)