Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2020 dated 31.01.2020, registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 353, 332, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, and of the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (¶21-¶22).

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 14 of 2020 (dated 31.01.2020, Police Station Rohru) and the consequent proceedings arising out of it should be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement reached between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The informant/victim Suresh Kumar and the injured Raj Kumar, in statements recorded on 04.06.2025, affirmed that they entered into the compromise voluntarily without any influence and did not want to proceed further with the matter.

Ratio / Principle

The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.PC.

Key takeaways

This Court's prior judgments quashing proceedings under Sections 353/332/333 IPC (Sumit Kumar), Sections 323/353/506 IPC (Murari Lal) and Sections 341/353 IPC (Rakesh Kumar) upon compromise are binding upon this Court.ratio¶¶20
In view of the binding precedents of this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 14 of 2020 dated 31.01.2020, registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 353, 332, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. MMO No. 413 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 11.07.2025; Rakesh Kainthla, Judge) - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2020 dated 31.01.2020, Police Station Rohru, District Shimla (Sections 353, 332, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC) and consequent proceedings, asserting settlement of the dispute through intervention of respectable persons, with the informant agreeing not to pursue the complaint. Statements of informant/victim Suresh Kumar and injured Raj Kumar recorded on 04.06.2025 confirmed a voluntary, uninfluenced compromise. Noting that Sections 323 and 325 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC, and following its own binding precedents (Sumit Kumar Vs. State of H.P.; Murari Lal Vs. State of H.P.; Rakesh Kumar and another Vs. State of H.P.), the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings.

( 2025:HHC:22384 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 413 of 2025. Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025.

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioners	: Ms. Pallavi Advocate, vic Bhushan Khaju	Sharma, e Mr. Kul ria, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State	: Mr. Jitender Additional Adv	K. Sharma, ocate General.
For Respondents No.2 & 3	: Mr. P.K. Verma,	Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2020, dated 31.01.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR. It has been

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

1

2( 2025:HHC:22384 )

asserted that the parties have settled the dispute with the intervention of the respectable people of the area. The informant has agreed not to proceed further with the complaint made by him. Hence, the petition.

The statements of the informant/victim, Suresh Kumar and the injured Raj Kumar were recorded on 04.06.2025, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person. They did not want to proceed further with the matter because of the compromise having been effected between them.

I have heard Ms. Pallvi Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 and have gone through the records carefully.

The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.PC. This Court has already quashed the proceedings under Sections 353, 332 and 333 of IPC in Sumit Kumar Vs. State of H.P. (2020) SCC Online HP 436 , Sections 323, 353 and 506 of IPC in Murari Lal Vs. State of H.P. (2023) HHC 628 , and Sections 341 and 353 of IPC

3( 2025:HHC:22384 )

in Rakesh Kumar and another Vs. State of H.P., Cr.MMO No. 700 of 2019, decided on 1.1.2020 . These judgments are binding upon this Court.

In view of the binding precedents of this Court, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 14 of 2020, dated 31.01.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 323, 325, read with Section 34 of IPC, at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.

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 Website of the High Court.

11^th July, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge