______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 200 of 2026 Reserved on: 19.06.2026 Date of Decision:01.07.2026 Rajender Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For respondents : : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr Ram Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), 2023, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 08 of 2018, dated 24.05.2018, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 342, 323, 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Women 2 Police Station Bilaspur, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising therefrom based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the informant and the petitioner are husband and wife. The F.I.R was lodged because of the misunderstanding between them. The matter has been reconciled, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the present petition. 3. The statement of the informant, Kanta Devi, was recorded on 30.04.2026, in which she stated that the matter had been reconciled between the parties. They are residing happily, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. She had no objection for quashing the F.I.R and the proceedings arising out of it based on the compromise. 4. The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the investigation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 3 6. Perusal of the record shows that even though the FIR was lodged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376, 377, 342, 323, 498-A and 506 of IPC, the learned Trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC. 7. The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The F.I.R. registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC can be quashed in terms of 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 and these judgments are binding on this Court. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.08 of 2018, dated 24.05.2018, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 342, 323 and 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Women Police Station Bilaspur, H.P., and consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are quashed. 4 10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 11. 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 01st July, 2026. (ravinder)