Anwar Ali and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

¶1

2026:HHC:12744

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 1126 of 2025

¶4

Reserved on: 12.3.2026 Date of Decision: 22.4.2026.

¶5

Anwar Ali and others Versus	….Petitioners
State of HP & another	….Respondents
Coram
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl*	a,*Judge.*
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹	*No.*
For the Petitioners :	Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1-State :	Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No.2 :	Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.

¶6

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶7

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 218 of 2016, dated 2.7.2016, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506, 325, and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

2026:HHC:12744

¶11

pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (Learned Trial Court).

¶12

It has been asserted that FIR No. 217 of 2016 and FIR No. 218 of 2016 were registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., regarding the same incident. The parties resolved their disputes and moved separate applications for compounding of the cases. FIR No. 217 of 2016 was permitted to be compounded by the learned Trial Court; the present FIR No. 218 of 2016 could not be compounded because some of the offences were non-compoundable. The dispute has been resolved between the parties, and one of the FIRs has also been compounded. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.

¶13

The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 10.12.2025, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. The statement of the victim, Baseem Akram, was recorded on 1.1.2026, in which he stated that he had entered

¶14

3

¶15

2026:HHC:12744

¶16

into a compromise with the accused voluntarily and had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

¶17

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶18

The offences punishable under Section 341 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable without the permission of the Court under Section 320 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. Section 320(3) provides that where an offence is compoundable, and the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 of the IPC, it may be compounded in the like manner. Therefore, the offences punishable under Section 325, 344, 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC, can be compounded.

¶19

The court had quashed the FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC in Chaman Lal versus State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 213, Avinash Singh Rana versus State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3181, Ameen versus State of H.P and others 2023 (1) Him. L.R. 375, Prashant Dharmani and others versus State of H.P. and others 2023 (1) Him. L.R. 241. This Court

¶20

4

¶21

2026:HHC:12744

¶22

had also 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 based on compromise . These judgments are binding upon this Court.

¶23

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 218 of 2016, dated 2.7.2016, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506, 325, and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed.

¶24

The present 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,

¶26

5

¶27

2026:HHC:12744

¶28

but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website

¶29

of the High Court.

¶30

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶31

22^nd April, 2026 (Chander)

Anwar Ali and Ors. v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Ali and Ors. v. State of Hp and Anr.

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

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Girdhari Lal

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Tara Chand Saini Vs State of Hp and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs Kamal Kumar