2025:HHC:34797 _______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 741 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.09.2025 Date of Decision: 15.10. 2025. Harinder alias Suri ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. . ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Yash Pal, Advocate, vice Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Narendera Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and 3. Rakesh Kainthla,Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 84 of 2025, dated 05.07.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R based on compromise effected between the parties. 2 2025:HHC:34797 2. It has been asserted that F.I.R Nos. 83 and 84 of 2025 dated 05.07.2025 were registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla arising out of the same incident. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute with the intervention of their friends and relatives and now the parties want to maintain cordial relations. Hence, the present petition. 3. Statements of informant-Manjeet and injured Sunil were recorded on 12.08.2025 in which they stated that the matter had been compromised between the parties voluntarily without any influence from any person and they have no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioner/accused is ordered to be quashed. 4. The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during course of the investigation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. The offences punishable under Section 126(2) and 115(2) are compoundable under Section 359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Section 359(3) provides the when an offence compoundable under this Section, and the accused is liable under Section 3(5) of BNS, the same may be compounded. Section 118(1) 3 2025:HHC:34797 corresponding to Section 324 of IPC and Section 118(2) of BNS corresponding to Section 326 of IPC. 7. The matter regarding the quashing of FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable Section 118(2) corresponds to Section 326 of IPC, was referred to the Larger Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench held in Vimal Kishore @ Vicky vs. State of HP and anr in Cr.MMO No. 81 of 2025 decided on 22.05.2025 that the matter was covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narinder Singh Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014 (6) SCC 446 and Naushe Ali Vs. State of U.P. 2025 (4) SCC 78 and contrary judgment of this Court in Kishore Kumar @ Kishore vs State of H.P. & another 2013 (3) Shim. LC 1220 holding that the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC corresponding to Section 118(1) of BNS cannot be compounded is deemed to have been overruled. 8. This Court has already held in Ram Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. 2016(4) Him. L.R. 2157, Naresh Katoch vs. State of H.P. & another 2019 (Suppl.) Him L.R. 2656, Kartik Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. 2020 STPL 4914 H P and Naykan Kamdak & others vs. State of H.P. 2020 STPL 6334 HP that the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC can be quashed because of the compromise effected between the parties. The sole judgment to the contrary in Kishore Kumar alias Kishore Vs. State of H.P. 4 2025:HHC:34797 2013 (3) Shimla Law Case 1220, taking a contrary view is deemed to have been overruled as per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 9. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 118(1) corresponds to Sections 324 of IPC in Ram Krishan alias Ramu vs. State of H.P.& others Latest HLJ 2021(2)(HP) 1327, Amir Hussain vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022(1)Him.L.R.195, Braham Dass & others vs. State of H.P & others 2022(1) Him.L.R.466, Inderjeet Singh & others vs State of H.P. & others 2022(2)Him.LR.1217, Raj Kumar @ Raj & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Latest HLJ 2022(HP)(1) 759 and Rukam Deen Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023(1) Him L.R.(HC) 6161 based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 10. In view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 84 of 2025, dated 05.07.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also ordered to be quashed. 5 2025:HHC:34797 11. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 12. 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 15th October,2025. (ravinder)