2026:HHC:22399 _____________________________ 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. 192 of 2026 Reserved on: 18.05.2026 Date of Decision: 16.06.2026 Karam Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr. Rajat Awasthy, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. : Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.382 of 2020, dated 09.12.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, based on the compromise. 2 2026:HHC:22399 2. It has been asserted that the parties have reconciled the matter between themselves and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter. Both the parties have filed a petition for divorce by way of mutual consent. They have withdrawn the cases filed against each other. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the F.I.R. Hence, the present petition. 3. The statement of the informant was recorded on 30.03.2026, in which she stated that she had entered into compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and she had no objection in case the FIR and proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The offences punishable under Section 504, 506 and 323 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Section 320 (3) of Cr.P.C. provides that where the offences are compoundable and the 3 2026:HHC:22399 accused is liable by virtue of Section 34 or 149 of IPC, the offences may be compounded. 6. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in Gian Singh versus State, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narender versus State of Punjab, 2014 (16) SCC 466, Vikas Singh vs. State of H.P. (2023)I DMC 335 (HP) and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P 2023 (1) Him L.R. 602 based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 382 of 2020, dated 09.12.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. is quashed and consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners-accused in pursuance thereto are also quashed. 8. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 9. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court 4 2026:HHC:22399 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 June, 2026 (ravinder)