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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 03 of 2023, dated 6.1.2023, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 354D, 323 and 504 IPC, and quashing of the consequential criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance of that FIR; petition disposed of in the above terms, along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 03 of 2023, dated 6.1.2023, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 354D, 323 and 504 IPC, along with the consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

This Court had earlier quashed FIRs for offences under Section 354D of the IPC in Raj Kumar, Navneet Mehta, Anil Sharma and Kushal Kumar, and those judgments are binding on this Court.

Key takeaways

In view of the binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 03 of 2023, dated 6.1.2023, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for offences under Sections 354D, 323 and 504 IPC, is ordered to be quashed.ratio¶22
Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, the criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof are also ordered to be quashed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on compromise — High Court of Himachal Pradesh (single Judge, Rakesh Kainthla), Cr. MMO No. 1132 of 2025, decided 10.3.2026: Petitioner-accused Mohit Chaudhary sought quashing of FIR No. 03 of 2023, dated 6.1.2023, P.S. Jawali, District Kangra, registered for offences under Sections 354D, 323 and 504 IPC, and of consequential proceedings, on the strength of a compromise effected between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons; the parties being residents of adjoining villages desirous of cordial relations. Statements of the victim and injured recorded on 9.12.2025 confirmed that the compromise was entered into voluntarily, without any influence, and that they had no objection to quashing. The Court observed that offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and that it had previously quashed Section 354D IPC FIRs in Raj Kumar 2022(2) Him. L.R. 1150, Navneet Mehta 2022(1) Him. L.R. 444, Anil Sharma 2020(4) Shim. LC 1899 and Kushal Kumar 2020 STPL 5621 HP, all binding on it. Accordingly, the FIR and the criminal proceedings pending/initiated in pursuance thereof were quashed and the petition disposed of.

2026:HHC:6391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1132 of 2025 Reserved on: 3.3.2026 Date of Decision: 10.3.2026.

Mohit Chaudhary		….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 Anshuman Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1-State	: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondents No.2 and 3	: Mr Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has -led the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 03 of 2023, dated 6.1.2023, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of o5ences punishable under Sections 354D, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise e5ected between

the parties.

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

2

2026:HHC:6391

It has been asserted that the parties have settled the

matter with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. They are residents of an adjoining village and want to maintain cordial relations with each other. Hence the petition.

Statements of the victim and injured were recorded on 9.12.2025, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any in=uence, and they had no objection in case the present FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise e5ected between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

The o5ences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. This Court also quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an o5ence punishable under Section 354D of the IPC in Raj Kumar vs State of HP 2022(2) Him. L.R. 1150, Navneet Mehta vs State of HP. 2022(1) Him. L.R. 444, Anil Sharma vs State of HP 2020 (4) Shim. LC 1899 and Kushal Kumar vs State of HP. 2020 STPL 5621 HP. These judgments are binding on this Court.

3

2026:HHC:6391

In view of these precedents, which are binding on this Court, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 03 of 2023, dated 6.1.2023, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of o5ences punishable under Sections 354D, 323 and 504 of IPC is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are also ordered to be quashed.

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

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 certi-ed copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

10th March, 2026 (Chander)