Allowed

Mohit Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CRMMO/1128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 64/2021 registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, for offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 149 IPC, based on a compromise between the parties. The victims and informant confirmed voluntary compromise and unwillingness to prosecute. The Court noted that offences under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 149 are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, and relying on its own binding precedents (Sivo Devi, Umesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, Inderjeet, Subhash Verma) which had quashed FIRs for Section 147 IPC based on compromise, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 64 of 2021 dated 13.04.2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

Mohit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MMO No. 1128 of 2025

¶3

Reserved on: 09.09.2026

¶4

Date of Decision:18.09.2026

¶5

Mohit Kumar & others ...Petitioners Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the Petitioners : Mr Shivanshu Attri, Advocate Vice Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.

¶9

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶10

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.64 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

¶11

Code (IPC) at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. and the

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

consequential proceedings arising out of it based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶15

It has been asserted that the informant has settled the dispute with the petitioners and he does not intend to prosecute the accused. The parties want to maintain a cordial relationship with each other after the compromise. Hence, the petition.

¶16

The statements of the informant Kehar Singh and the victims Onkar Singh and Anita Devi were recorded on 02.03.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily, without any influence from any person, and they do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise effected between the parties.

¶17

Statement of Kehar Singh, Special Power of Attorney (SPA) of his brother Ajmer Singh, one of the victims, was recorded on 29.07.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

¶20

The status report mentions that the charge-sheet was filed before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 506 and 427 of the IPC.

¶21

The offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 320(3) of the CrPC provides that where the offences can be compounded under Section 320 and a person is liable by virtue of Section 149 of the IPC, the offence may be compounded. Hence, the offence is punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and 427, read with Section 149 of the IPC can be compounded.

¶22

This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 147 of IPC in Sivo Devi vs others vs State of HP 2023 (2), Shimla Law Cases 949, in Umesh Kumar vs State Kumar HP 2022 STPL 10721, Satish Kumar State of H.P. 2022 STPL 10703, Inderjeet vs State of H.P. 2022(2) Himachal Law Reporter 1217 and Subhash Verma vs State of H.P. 2021 (3) Shimla Law Cases 1146, based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶23

Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. 64 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021,

¶24

¶25

registered for the commission of offences punishable under

¶26

Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. are quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

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 the website of the High Court.

¶29

( Rakesh Kainthla)

¶30

Judge

¶31

18^th September, 2026

¶32

(Ravinder)

Mohit Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases