2025:HHC:39601 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 842 of 2025. Reserved on: 12.11.2025. Date of Decision: 22.11.2025. Irshad Ali ...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 : Ms Meghna Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy and 2/State Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Mr Sanam, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has 昀椀led the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 17/2025, dated 18.7.2025, registered for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 78, 351(2) and 356(1) (sic) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR based on the compromise e昀昀ected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise amicably on the advice of elders and respectable 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2025:HHC:39601 persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition. 3. The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 5.9.2025, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any in昀氀uence or coercion from any person. She did not want to proceed further with the matter and had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. Section 356(1) of BNSS does not provide for punishment but it de昀椀nes the ingredients of o昀昀ence. Penalty is provided in Section 356(2) of BNSS. The o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 351(2) and 356(2) are compoundable under Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The o昀昀ence punishable under Section 78 of BNS corresponds to Section 354D of IPC. This Court has already quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an o昀昀ence punishable under Section 354D of IPC in Raj Kumar vs State of HP 2022(2) Him. L.R. 1150, Navneet Mehta vs State of HP. 2022(1) Him. L.R. 444, Anil Sharma vs State of HP 2020 (4) Shim. LC 1899 and Kushal Kumar vs 2025:HHC:39601 State of HP. 2020 STPL 5621 HP. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 17/2025, dated 18.7.2025, registered for the commission of o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 78, 351(1) (sic), 356(2) of BNS at Police Station Woman Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., and consequent 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 miscellaneous applications, if any. 9. 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 certi昀椀ed copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd November 2025 (Chander)