Dismissed¶17

Nishant v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jul 2026CRMMO/1036/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Cr. MMO No. 1036 of 2025; quashing of FIR on compromise/settlement; F.I.R No. 206 of 2025, P.S. Sunder Nagar, District Mandi; Sections 281 and 125(a), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; informant's consent indispensable for quashing FIR; victim Fateh Singh; informant Rajesh Khanna; Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; petition dismissed 07.07.2026; not approved for reporting.

What did the court decide?

The informant is a party likely to be affected by the quashing of the FIR registered based on the information provided by him. ¶14

Nishant Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MMO No. 1036 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026.

¶3

Nishant ...Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner	: Mr Ram Kumar, A Mr Munish Advocate.	dvocate, vice Dhatwalia,
For Respondent	: Mr Ajit Shar Advocate Gen respondent No.1.	ma, Deputy eral, for
	Mr Rakesh Thak for respondents No	ur, Advocate, .2 and 3.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R No. 206 of 2025 dated 23.09.2025, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a)

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 , based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶12

It has been asserted that the informant and the injured/victim have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner with the intervention of respectable members of the society. The informant and the victim do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the present petition.

¶13

The statement of the victim, Fateh Singh, was recorded on 25.02.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person. He had no objection in case F.I.R as well as proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed.

¶14

The statement of the informant, Rajesh Khanna, was not recorded as he was not produced despite repeated adjournments. Since the informant is a party likely to be affected by the quashing of the FIR registered based on the information provided by him; therefore, it is impermissible to quash the FIR based on the compromise effected between the petitioner and the victim, without the informant’s consent.

¶15

¶16

In view of the above, the present petition fails and is

¶17

dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 07^th July, 2026. (ravinder)

Nishant v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Jogta Vs Bambir Singh

Rakesh Kumar Vs State

Pushap Raj Vs Khoob Ram and others

Tilak Raj Vs Rajeev Kumar and Another

Raman Kumar Vs State of Hp

State Vs Arjun Singh