2026:HHC:53 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 224 of 2025 Reserved on: 12.12.2025 Date of Decision: 1.1.2026 Yakub Ali ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Ms Narvada, Advocate. For respondent No.1/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For respondents No. 2 to 9 : Mr Surinder Saklani, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 106 of 2024, dated 15.6.2024, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2026:HHC:53 2 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 9 have entered into a compromise and decided to withdraw the criminal proceedings instituted against each other. The FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding, and the parties do not wish to proceed further. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. 3. Statements of informant Yakub Ali and injured Mohammad Ali were recorded on 2.5.2025, in which it was stated that they had entered into a compromise with each other voluntarily, and they had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise. Statements of injured Nafisa, Sameena and Mohammad Umar were recorded on 16.7.2025, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person. 4. The FIR shows that Irshad had also sustained injuries in the incident. He died after the incident. His death certificate was placed on record, which was verified by the State; however, the statements of legal representatives of Irshad were not 2026:HHC:53 3 produced before the Court for recording their statements regarding the compromise. Section 320 (4)(b) of Cr.P.C. provides that where a person competent to compound the offence is dead, the legal representative of such person can compound the offence with the consent of the Court. 5. In the present case, the legal representatives of the deceased Irshad have not appeared before the Court to express their consent; hence, it is impermissible to quash the FIR at the instance of the other persons. 6. Consequently, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st January, 2026 (Chander)