2026:HHC:23176 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1190 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.05.2026 Date of Decision: 19.06.2026 Akhil Chauhan & Ors ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr P.P. Chauhan, Advocate For the respondents/ State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 84 of 2025 dated 08.11.2025 registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 191(2) and 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, based on a compromise effected between the parties. It has been asserted that the FIR was lodged on the statement of petitioner No.3. The petitioners have amicably settled the matter. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23176 continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on a compromise. 2. The statements of the informant Ritik Thakur and the injured Sahil Kanwar were recorded on 25.02.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and that they had no objection to the quashing of the FIR based on the compromise. 3. I have heard Mr P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. 4. The offence punishable under Section 115(2) is compoundable under Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 359 (3) of the BNSS provides that when an offence is compoundable under this section, and a person is liable under Section 190 of the BNS, the offence may be compounded. Therefore, the offences punishable under Section 115 (2) read with Section 190 of BNS can be compounded by taking recourse to Section 359 of BNSS. Section 191 (2) of the BNSS corresponds to Section 147 of IPC. This Court has already quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC, inter alia, in Sivo Devi 3 2026:HHC:23176 vs others vs State of HP 2023 (2), Shimla Law Cases 949, Umesh Kumar vs State Kumar HP 2022 STPL 10721, Satish Kumar State of H.P. 2022 STPL 10703, Inderjeet vs State of H.P. 2022(2) Himachal Law Reporter 1217 and Subhash Verma vs State of H.P. 2021 (3) Shimla Law Cases 1146 based on the compromise effected between the parties. These judgments are binding on this Court. 65 The present petition has been filed by the accused, informant and the victim. This Court has its own reservation regarding the maintainability of a petition for quashing the FIR filed by the informant and the victim. However, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have entertained and allowed such petitions in Col.(Retd) Kuldeep Singh Banshtu & Ores vs. State of H.P. & Ors 2024:HHC:6436, Sakhi & others vs. State of H.P. & Ors (2022) 1 HimLR 91, Shri Devi vs. State of H.P. & another Cr. MMO No. 464 of 2018 decided on 09.08.2019, Rajneesh Kumari vs. State of H.P. (2021) 2 SimLC 790, Rakesh Kumar & Another vs. State of H.P. Cr.MMO No 700 of 2019, decided on 01.01.2020, which are binding on this Court. 6. This Court had held in Krishan Dutt vs. State of H.P & Ors 2025:HHC:39280 that it is essential to maintain the continuity of the judicial decisions and not to unsettle the long line of authorities when 4 2026:HHC:23176 it has not caused any prejudice to any person. Therefore, no reference is being made to the larger Bench despite the reservation of this Court. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 84 of 2025, dated 08.11.2025, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 191(2) and 115(2) of BNS and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed. 8. 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 certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th June, 2026 (Nikita)