Petition sought quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 354A, 504, 506 and 509 IPC based on a compromise; the victim confirmed the compromise and raised no objection. Relying on binding precedents, the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
FIR No. 309 of 2021 and consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:6778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 1057 of 2025
Reserved on: 2.3.2026
Date of Decision: 12.3.2026.
| Nitish Rana | …. Petitioner | |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| State of HP & ors. | …. Respondents |
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
| For the Petitioner | : Mr Vikrant Advocate. |
Chandel, |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1-State | : Mr Prashant Advocate Gener |
Sen, Deputy al. |
| For Respondents No.2 and 3 | : Mr Atul Kumar, |
Advocate. |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 309 of 2021, dated 22.8.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2026:HHC:6778
arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.
3
2026:HHC:6778
and others 2022 STPL 13743 HP, Raj Kumar Vs. State of HP and others 2022(2) Him. L.R. 1150, Mukesh Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 9742 HP and Sunil Kumar and State of HP and others 2022(1) Him. L.R. 280. These judgments are binding on this Court.
4
2026:HHC:6778
but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website
of the High Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 309 of 2021 under Sections 354A, 504, 506 and 509 IPC should be quashed on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidya Devi Vs. State of HP and othersFollowed¶5
Vidya Devi Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 13724 HP
Ameen Vs. State of HP and othersFollowed¶5
Ameen Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 13743 HP
Raj Kumar Vs. State of HP and othersFollowed¶5
Raj Kumar Vs. State of HP and others 2022(2) Him. L.R. 1150
Mukesh Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and othersFollowed¶5
Mukesh Kumar and others Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 9742 HP
Sunil Kumar and State of HP and othersFollowed¶5
Sunil Kumar and State of HP and others 2022(1) Him. L.R. 280
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nitish Rana
State of HP
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
