_____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 703 of 2026 Reserved on: 02.09.2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 Babrik Kumar & another ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr. Verender Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. : Mr. Kuldeep Gagta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 16 of 2024, dated 22.07.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Women Police Station BCS, Shimla, District Shimla, 2 H.P. and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that matter has arisen out of the matrimonial discord. The parties have reconciled the matter and they want to reside peacefully, hence, the petition. 3. The statement of the informant/victim Urmila was recorded on 23.07.2026, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the petitioners/accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and she did not want to proceed further with the matter based on the compromise effected between the parties. 4. The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the investigation. 5. Heard. 6. The offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Section 320 (3) of Cr.P.C. provides that 3 where the offence is compoundable and the accused is liable by virtue of Section 34, the offence may be compounded. 7. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in Gian Singh versus State, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narender versus State of Punjab, 2014 (16) SCC 466, Vikas Singh vs. State of H.P. (2023)I DMC 335 (HP) and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P 2023 (1) Him L.R. 602 based on the compromise and these judgments are binding on this Court. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 16 of 2024, dated 22.07.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC at Women Police Station BCS, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. and consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners-accused in pursuance thereto are quashed. 9. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 10. 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 4 the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but, if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th September, 2026 (ravinder)