Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/791/2026 of GAGANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 29 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 791 of 2026 Reserved on: 18.09.2026 Date of Decision: 29.09.2026. Gagandeep Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
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. 791 of 2026 Reserved on: 18.09.2026 Date of Decision: 29.09.2026. Gagandeep Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Avinash Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr Raj Kumar Malik, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 69 of 2024 dated 29.02.2024 registered at Police Station Una Sadar, Tehsil and District Una, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a compromise between the parties.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. It has been asserted that the matter between the petitioner and the informant has been settled with the intervention of the respectable persons of the area. The informant and the victim do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the petition.
3. The statements of the informant Tara Singh and the victims Shakuntla Devi and Kulvir Kaur were recorded on 03.08.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and they do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. They have no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
5. The FIR has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC in Sushant vs. State of H.P. 2023 HLJ 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs. Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR 384 and
Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45, based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.
6. In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 69 of 2024, dated 29.02.2024, registered at Police Station Una Sadar, Tehsil and District Una, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are ordered to be 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 the passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge 29th September, 2026
(Nikita)