Allowed¶24

Kishor Lal v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jun 2025CRMMO/438/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing petition; compromise between parties; informant no objection; FIR No. 0106 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024; Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.; Sections 75(1)(iv) and 79 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Section 79 BNS compoundable under Section 359 BNSS; Section 75(1)(iv) BNS corresponds to Section 354(A)/Section 354 IPC; Kishor Lal v. State of H.P.; Cr.MMO No. 438 of 2025; precedents followed: Vidya Devi 2022 STPL 13724 HP; Chaman Lal Latest HLJ 2023 (HP)(1) 213; Ameen 2023(1) Him. L.R 375; Rakesh Verma Latest HLJ 2022 (HP)(2) 952; Justice Rakesh Kainthla; decided 17.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No. 0106 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024 (PS Baijnath, Kangra) and consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of.

Kishor Lal Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:18374

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No. 438 of 2025

¶4

Reserved on: 06.06.2025 Date of Decision: 17.06.2025

Kishor Lal

....Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & anr.

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? NO. For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State : Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0106 of 2024, dated 27.09.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(iv) and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P and consequent proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

¶13

It has been asserted that matter has been compromised between the parties without any influence from any person. The parties

¶14

_______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶15

¶16

2025:HHC:18374

¶17

want to maintain cordial relations with each other and the informant has no objection in case F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising of the F.I.R. are ordered to be quashed. Hence, the petition.

¶18

Statement of informant was recorded on 27.05.2025, in which she stated that she had entered into compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence or coercion from any person. Compromise (Annexure P-2) bore her signature. She did not want to proceed further with the F.I.R. and she has no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioner/accused is ordered to be quashed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

¶20

The offence punishable under Section 79 of BNS is compoundable under Section 359 of BNSS. The offence punishable under Section 75(1)(iv) of BNS corresponding to Section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. under Section 354 of 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. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶21

¶22

2025:HHC:18374

¶23

6 Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 0106 of 2024, dated 27.09.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 75(1)(iv) and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P and consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶27

17^th June, 2024 (ravinder)

Kishor Lal v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Lal v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Rana Vs State of Hp

Jagdish Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs State

Aakash Negi Vs State of Hp and Another

Mahesh Gautam Vs Rajeev Kohli

Hardeep Thakur Vs Raj Dev