Disposed¶14

State of Hp v. Vijay Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2025CRMMO/660/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalat compromise disposal of challan challenged by State; compoundability of offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 IPC; consent of injured complainant Anurag subsequently obtained; inherent jurisdiction declined; State of H.P. v. Vijay Kumar, Cr. MMO No. 660 of 2025 (HP High Court, 04.9.2025, Rakesh Kainthla, J.).

What did the court decide?

None; the petition stands disposed of. ¶14

State of Hp Vs Vijay Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MMO No. 660 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.9.2025.

¶3

State of H.P. ...Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Jitender Sharma,
	Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent	: None.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat on 14.12.2024, the statements of Pawan Kumar and Vijay Kumar were recorded that they had compromised the matter with each other; hence the matter was disposed of as having been compromised.

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

The State filed the present petition asserting that one of the injured Anurag was not present before the Lok Adalat and the matter could not have been reconciled in his absence.

¶12

The State was asked to seek instructions whether Anurag is interested in pursuing the matter or not. The State has filed the statement of Anurag recorded by the police that he had no objection for the compromise.

¶13

All the offences mentioned in the police challan are compoundable. The grievance of the State that offences could not have been compounded without the consent of Anurag now stands redressed because Anurag has shown his consent for the compromise. Therefore, it is not a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised.

¶14

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶15

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶16

4^th September, 2025 (Chander)

State of Hp v. Vijay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Vijay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Dev Vs State of Hp

Anjali Negi Vs Pardeep Negi

Sajan Kumar Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Dharuv Kumar

Pankaj @ Panku Vs State of Hp

Karamjit Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others