GAURAV GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER
CRMMO/597/2025 · 2025-11-17
Rakesh Kainthla
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38466 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38466 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:38508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 597 of 2025. Reserved on: 14.10.2025. Date of Decision: 17.11.2025. Gaurav Gupta and another ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners
: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 185 of 2020, dated 6.11.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.
2. It has been asserted that the informant and the petitioners have compromised the matter, and there is no chance of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:38508 the conviction of the petitioners. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.
3. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the parties; however, the informant did not appear before the Court and a statement was made on behalf of the petitioners that the informant was not coming to the Court to compromise the matter, and the notice be issued to her.
4. In view of this statement, the plea that the matter has been compromised between the parties is not supported by any material placed on record. Since the petition has been filed based on the compromise between the parties, and the informant is not appearing before the Court to make a statement regarding the compromise; therefore, the present petition cannot be allowed, and the FIR cannot be quashed based on the compromise.
5. In view of the above, the present petition fails and it is dismissed.
6. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
17th November 2025 (Chander)