Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21619 (HP)

YUGAL THAKUR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CRMMO/545/2026 · 2026-09-02

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:37197 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 545 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.8.2026 Date of Decision: 02.9.2026. Yugal Thakur & ors. …. Petitioners Versus State of HP and anr. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shabnam, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 84 of 2022, dated 16.4.2022, registered at Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:37197 2. It has been asserted that the FIR was registered because of a misunderstanding between the parties. Now the matter has been settled between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed. 3. The statement of the informant Ajeet Singh was recorded on 15.7.2026 in which he stated that he has entered into the compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 read with 34 of IPC. Section 323 of IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC. Section 320(3) of CrPC provides that when the 3 2026:HHC:37197 offence is compoundable, and a person is liable by virtue of Section 34 of the IPC, the offence may be compounded. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC can be compounded under Section 320 of CrPC. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC in Prashant Dharmani & others vs. State of H.P. & others 2023(1) Him.L.R.241, Ameen vs State of H.P. & others 2023(1) Him L.R.375, Avinash Singh Rana vs State of H.P. & others 023 STPL 3181 H.P and Chaman Lal vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2023(HP) (1)213 based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 84 of 2022, dated 16.4.2022, registered at Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed. 4 2026:HHC:37197 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 2nd September, 2026 (Chander)