Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6209 (HP)

DHANI RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CRMMO/258/2025 · 2026-01-01

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:61 _______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 258 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.12.2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026. Dhani Ram & others .... Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : : Mr Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 of 2019, dated 03.02.2019, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Baijnath, 2 2026:HHC:61 District Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the parties have reconciled the matter amicably, and they do not want to proceed with the matter. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R., as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., be quashed. 3. Statements of informant/injured Harnam Singh, injured/victims, Swaroop Chand and Suleshan Devi, were recorded on 09.07.2025 and 15.07.2025, respectively, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and they had no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioners/accused is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise. 4. The police have filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the course of the investigation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 3 2026:HHC:61 6. The offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Section 320 (3) of the Cr.P.C. provides that where the offences are compoundable and the accused is liable by virtue of Section 34 or 149 of IPC, the offences may be compounded; therefore, offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC can be compounded under Section 320 of CrPC. 7. A cross F.I.R. No. 24 of 2019 dated 03.02.2019 has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 & 201 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., regarding the same incident, which is non-compoundable. Since, the two F.I. Rs have been registered out of the same incident, one of which, namely, FIR No. 24 of 2019 is non compoundable; therefore, it would be highly improper to direct the parties to approach the learned Magistrate for compromising the matter in the present case and this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction, even though the alternative remedy is available in the matter. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.23 of 2019, dated 03.02.2019, registered for the commission 4 2026:HHC:61 of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners/accused in pursuance thereof, are also ordered to be 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 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 01st January, 2026. (ravinder)