VIKRAMJEET SINGH AND OTHERS v. BHUPENDER AND ANOTHER
CRMMO/581/2026 · 2026-08-06
Rakesh Kainthla
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20040 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20040 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO No. 581 of 2026
Reserved on: 29.07.2026
Date of Decision: 06.08.2026
Vikramjeet Singh & others
.... Petitioners
Versus
Bhupender & another .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Ms Ritu Sharma, Advocate. For respondents
:
: Mr Santosh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), 2023, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0077 of 2024, dated 11.05.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under
2
Sections 341, 147, 149, 504, 506, 323, and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Dharampur, Tehsil & District Solan, H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on a compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the informant and the victims do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the petition. 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 and victims Bhupender, Kartik Sharma, Nitish Sharma and Yugal Bhardwaj, respectively, were recorded on 15.06.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily and had no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the parties. 4. Heard. 5. The offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, and 323 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of
3
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 320(3) of the CrPC provides that if 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 341, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC can be compounded. 6.
This Court has quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC 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. This Court has also quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC in Pyar Chand @ Bittu & others vs. State of H.P. & anr 2022: HHC:9585 and Adarash Kumar & Ors. vs State of H.P & Ors. Cr.MMO No. 1046 of 2023, decided on 16th May, 2024, based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 4
7. Therefore, in view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 0077 of 2024, dated 11.05.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 149, 504, 506, 323 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Dharampur, Tehsil & District Solan, H.P.and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are quashed. 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
06th August, 2026 (Ravinder)