2026:HHC:29329 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 238 of 2026 Reserved on: 7.7.2026 Date of Decision: 17.7.2026. Ram Lal @ Ramu & 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 Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. and injure Deepak Advocate, vice Mr Nitish, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.106 of 2023, dated 17.6.2023, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29329 Penal Code (IPC), based on a compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that both parties are running the taxi business at Shimla. The dispute arose between two taxi operators, and both parties levelled allegations against each other. The FIRs were registered against both parties. The matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of local bodies or public representatives, and both parties want to settle the dispute amongst themselves. Continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise. Hence the petition. 3. The statement of the Informant Narinder Thakur was recorded on 09.04.2026, in which he stated that he had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the accused without any influence from any person and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR based on a compromise. Statements of Sanjay Kumar and Om Prakash (victim) were recorded on 27.04.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. Similarly, the statement of the victim Deepak was recorded on 19.05.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the 3 2026:HHC:29329 accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise between the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The police have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 326, 306 and 506 of the IPC. The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedures (Cr.PC). Section 320(3) Cr.P.C. provides that when the offences are compoundable, and the person is liable by virtue of Section 149 of IPC, the offence may be compounded. Therefore, the offences punishable under Section 323, 506, read with Section 149 of the IPC can be compounded under Section 320 of the Cr.PC. This Court has quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC, inter alia in Sivo Devi 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) 4 2026:HHC:29329 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. 6. In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No.106 of 2023, dated 17.6.2023, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 8. 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 17th July, 2026 (Chander)