Raju Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Raju Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 85 of 2021 dated 16.5.2021 (PS Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.) for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, and consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused, quashed; petition disposed of in the above terms along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any; parties permitted to produce a downloaded copy of the judgment to the authorities concerned, who shall not insist on a certified copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 85 of 2021 dated 16.5.2021 (PS Sadar, Bilaspur), registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, and consequential proceedings arising out of it should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

This Court's earlier judgments quashing FIRs registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC (Sushant, Vikas Huda, Kulwidner Singh, Nishant) based on compromise were declared binding on this Court.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the binding precedents, the petition was allowed: FIR No. 85 of 2021 dated 16.5.2021 registered at PS Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., and the consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused were ordered to be quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Motion (Cr. MMO No. 1195 of 2025) decided by a single judge (Rakesh Kainthla, Judge) of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (decision date per header 17.5.2026). Petitioner Raju Ram sought quashing of FIR No. 85 of 2021, dated 16.5.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, on the footing of a compromise voluntarily entered into by the parties with the intervention of respectable persons of society. The Court recorded the statement of informant/victim Kewal Krishan on 2.3.2026, in which he confirmed he had sustained injuries in the incident, had compromised voluntarily without any influence, and had no objection to the FIR being quashed as per the compromise. Observing that it had already quashed comparable FIRs under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLJ 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR 384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45, and that those judgments are binding on it, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused; the petition stands disposed of, along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Judgment approved for reporting (footnote answer: Yes); parties permitted to furnish a downloaded copy of the judgment to authorities, who shall not insist on a certified copy.

2026:HHC:15985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1195 of 2025 Reserved on: 2.4.2026 Date of Decision: 17.5.2026.

Raju Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …. Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner	: Mr Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3	: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondent No.4	: None.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 85 of 2021, dated 16.5.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

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

2

2026:HHC:15985

It has been asserted that the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise with each other, with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. They do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the petition.

The statement of the informant/victim, Kewal Krishan, was recorded on 2.3.2026, in which he stated that he had sustained injuries in the incident. He had compromised the matter with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise effected between the parties.

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

The FIR has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLJ 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023

HLR 384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 based on compromise . These judgments are binding on this Court.

3

2026:HHC:15985

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition

is allowed and FIR No. 85 of 2021, dated 16.5.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof are 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 certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

12th May, 2026 (Chander)