2026:HHC:27489 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 420 of 2026 Reserved on: 1.7.2026 Date of Decision: 8.7.2026. Shivansh & ors. …. Petitioners Versus State of HP & ors. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2-State: Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No.3 to 9 : M/s Rahul Anand Kapoor and Vinod Kumar, Advocates. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2026, dated 25.03.2026, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(2) and 190 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 based on a compromise effected between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:27489 2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and the informant and the victim do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 4. As per the FIR, the informant Moryan, Sahil, Pankaj and Sahil Dhatwalia had sustained injuries. The police filed a status report mentioning that the medico-legal certificates of Moryan, Sahil, Sahil Dhatwalia and Pankaj were obtained regarding the injuries sustained by them. The statements of Sahil Dhatwalia, Pankaj Sharma and Moryan were recorded on 11.05.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioners voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they had no objection to questioning of FIR based on a compromise between the parties. However, Sahil, son of Lal Chand, stated that he was not beaten in the incident, and he had not sustained any injury. Therefore, the very premise of the petition that all the victims and the informant have entered into a compromise is not correct, as one 3 2026:HHC:27489 of the victims, Sahil, has denied that he sustained any injury. It is a matter of trial whether Sahil had sustained any injury or not, and cannot be adjudicated during these proceedings. 5. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to quash the FIR based on a compromise. 6. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 7. The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th July, 2026 (Chander)