2026:HHC:22549 _____________________________ 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. 643 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.05.2026 Date of Decision 17.06.2026 Savitri Verma & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3/State. Ms Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 7. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 99 of 2017, dated 16.07.2017, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the 2 2026:HHC:22549 consequential proceedings arising out of it based on a compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that respondent No.4/informant entered into a compromise (Annexure P-4) with the petitioners with the intervention of the respectable members of the society. The continuation of the proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The statement of the informant, Inder Kalta, was recorded on 14.08.2025, in which he stated that he had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the accused, and he had no objection to quashing the F.I.R and proceedings arising out of it based on the compromise. 4. The statements of victims, Padam Dev Sharma, Sunil Kumar and Narender Thakur, were recorded on 23.03.2026, in which they stated that no person had given beatings to them and no threats were advanced to them, but damage was caused to the liquor vend. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 3 2026:HHC:22549 6. The victims, Padam Dev Sharma, Narender Thakur and Sunil Kumar, have denied that any incident had taken place; hence, the matter requires adjudication by the learned Trial Court. They have not stated anything about the compromise, and the plea taken in the present petition that the matter has been compromised between the parties is not established. Therefore, the petition cannot be allowed. 7. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. 8. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th June, 2026. (ravinder)