Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18135 (HP)

BHUPENDER AND OTHERS v. VIKRAMJEET SINGH AND OTHERS

CRMMO/579/2026 · 2026-07-31

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:31654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No: 579 of 2026 Reserved on: 28.07.2026 Date of Decision: 31.07.2026 Bhupender & Others ..Petitioners Versus Vikramjeet Singh & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr Santosh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 : Ms Ritu Raj, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 76 of 2024 dated 11.05.2024 registered at Police Station Dharampur, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 382 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of it 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:31654 2. It has been asserted that the petitioners and the informant have voluntarily entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The parties want to maintain a cordial relationship. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. 3. The statements of the informant Vikramjeet Singh and the victims Mehakdeep Singh, Jashanjot, Shivam Kohli and Sukhpreet Singh were recorded on 15.06.2026, in which they stated that they had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the accused without any influence from any person and they had no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the parties. 4. The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC.). Section 320(3) of the Cr.P.C. provides that when the offences are compoundable, and a person is liable by virtue of Section 149, the offences may be compounded. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 3 2026:HHC:31654 Section 149 of the IPC can be compounded under Section 320 of the Cr.PC. 5. 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) 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. This Court has also quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 382 of the IPC in Prashant Dharmani versus State of H.P 2022 (4) Shim. LC 2226 and Krishan Lal versus State of H.P. 2022 (4) Shim. LC 2347 based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. In view of the binding precedent of this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 76 of 2024 dated 11.05.2024 registered at Police Station Dharampur, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 382 and 506 of the Indian Penal 4 2026:HHC:31654 Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners/accused in pursuance thereof 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 the passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 31st July, 2026 (Nikita)