2026:HHC:14131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 606 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.03.2026 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents ______________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate For the respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Ms Manjeet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 91 of 2022 dated 31st October, 2022, registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 201, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It has been asserted that the respondent/ complainant is the real brother of petitioner No.1. He made a complaint to the Police and the Police registered the FIR No.91 of 2022 dated 31st October, 2022. The police filed the charge-sheet before the Court and added Section 201 of the IPC. The matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court). The parties have settled the matter amongst themselves, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court after the compromise. Hence, the petition. 3. The informant Anil Kumar appeared before this Court on 16th October, 2025 and stated that he had reported the matter to the Police because of some misunderstanding. No person had given him beatings. 4. It is apparent from the statement made by the informant that the matter has not been reconciled between the parties. As per the informant, the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding, and no incident had occurred. This Court does not appreciate the evidence while adjudicating a petition for quashing of the FIR, and only quashes the FIR if it is satisfied that 3 the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily without any influence from any person. Such a satisfaction cannot be recorded in the present case because the informant has nowhere stated that any compromise has been effected by him. He only stated that no incident had occurred with him. Whether the incident had taken place or not is a matter to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court where the matter is pending, and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction vested with the learned Trial Court. 5. Since the necessary condition that the matter has been compromised between the parties is not satisfied in the present case, the present petition cannot be allowed and is dismissed 6. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. 7. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th April, 2026 (Kiran)