Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/705/2026 on 12 October 2026
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. 705 of 2026 Reserved on: 5.10.2026 Date of Decision: 12.10.2026. Satveer Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & Anr. …. Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ganesh Barowalia,
Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr Ayush Nair Mankotia, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 121 of 2024, dated 11.07.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a)
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, based on a compromise between the parties.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner had cooperated with the informant/injured and did not try to evade the process of law. The matter has been resolved between the parties. Hence, the petition.
3. The statements of the informant, Rajesh Kumar, and the victim, Nirmala Sharma, were recorded on 25.08.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily, without any influence from any person, and that they had no objection to the quashing of the FIR based on the compromise between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
5. The offences punishable under Sections 125 (a) and 125 (b) of BNS are compoundable under Section 359 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The offence punishable under Section 281 of the BNS corresponds to Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This Court has quashed an
F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 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. Shim 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. 121 of 2024, dated 11.07.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of BNS and the consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof 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 12th October, 2026 (Chander)