Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/846/2026 of VIKAS DOGRA Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 30 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 846 of 2026 Reserved on: 24.09.2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2026 Vikas Dogra .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& anr. .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 846 of 2026
Reserved on: 24.09.2026
Date of Decision: 30.09.2026
Vikas Dogra
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P.& anr.
.... Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the petitioner : Mr Jagan Nath, Advocate. For respondents
: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent no.1/State. Mr J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 92 of 2019, dated 07.06.2019, registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354C read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the consequential proceedings arising out of it based on the compromise effected between the parties.
2. It has been asserted that a CCTV camera was installed by the petitioner's father, which led to a dispute. The dispute has been resolved with the intervention of the respectable members of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the present petition.
3. The statement of the informant/victim-Usha Devi, was recorded on 11.08.2026, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person and she does not want to proceed further with the FIR because of the compromise between the parties.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
5. This Court had quashed the F.I.R. under Section 354C of the IPC in Vidya Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others, 2022 STPL 13724 HP, Chaman Lal vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 213, Ameen vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others, 2023(1) Him. L.R. 375 and Rakesh Verma vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (2) 952, based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.
6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 92 of 2019, dated 07.06.2019, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354C read with Section 511 of IPC at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., and the consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused are quashed.
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
30th September, 2026
(Ravinder)