Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/771/2026 on 5 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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. 771 of 2026 Reserved on: 26.10.2026 Date of Decision: 05.11.2026. Karam Chand @ Manohar & ors. …. Petitioners Versus State of HP …. Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr Sanjeev Suri, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Ms Manisha Thampta,
Advocate, vice Ms Abhilasha Kaundal,
Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2024, dated 06.04.2024, registered at Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, H.P. for the commission of
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, based on a compromise entered into between the parties.
2. It has been asserted that the matter was reported to the police because of some misunderstanding between the parties. The parties have settled the dispute, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the petition.
3. The statement of the informant, Meera, was recorded on 07.09.2026, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily, without any influence from any person, and she does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. She had no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise between the parties.
4. Heard.
5. The offence punishable under Section 498A arises out of a matrimonial dispute and an FIR registered for the commission of the aforesaid offense can be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, as per Gian Singh versus State, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narender versus State of Punjab, 2014 (16) SCC 466, Vikas Singh vs. State of H.P. (2023) I DMC 335 (HP) and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P2023 (1) Him L.R. 602, which are binding upon this Court.
6. In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 26 of 2024, dated 06.04.2024, registered at Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners-accused in pursuance thereto are also 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 passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge 5th November, 2026 (Chander)