Chander Mani Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chander Mani Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: FIR No. 40 of 2020, dated 07.06.2020, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 354A and 323 IPC, quashed, together with all consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused; parties permitted to produce a copy of the judgment downloaded from the High Court website in lieu of a certified copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 40 of 2020, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 354A and 323 IPC, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

The offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has quashed FIRs registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354A IPC in Vidya Devi, Ameen, Raj Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar, and these judgments are binding on this Court; an FIR under Section 354A IPC can therefore be quashed on the basis of compromise in view of these binding precedents.

Key takeaways

In view of the binding precedents, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 40 of 2020, dated 07.06.2020, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 323 IPC, is ordered to be quashed.ratio¶6
Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending or initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof are also ordered to be quashed.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Kainthla, J.), Cr. MMO No. 1205 of 2025, decided 17.03.2026: Petition allowed and FIR No. 40 of 2020, dated 07.06.2020, of Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, registered for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 323 IPC, quashed along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise voluntarily entered into between the parties. The informant's statement, recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan and received in a sealed cover, confirmed the compromise was voluntary, that she and the accused belong to the same family, and that she had no objection to quashing. Noting that the offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Court followed its own binding precedents in Vidya Devi, Ameen, Raj Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar (all 2022), wherein FIRs under Section 354A IPC were quashed on compromise. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. Judgment not approved for reporting.

2026:HHC:7378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1205 of 2025 Reserved on: 05.03.2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026

Chander Mani ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Coram
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl*	a,*Judge.*
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹	No
For the Petitioner :	Mr Sarvedaman Rathor, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State :	Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent No.2 :	Mr Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 40 of 2020, dated 07.06.2020, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A and 323 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:7378

arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

It has been asserted that the parties have settled the matter, and the continuation of the proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan has recorded the informant’s statement and sent it to this Court in a sealed manner. This Court has opened the sealed cover. The informant stated that she had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily. She and the accused belong to the same family, and she did not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. She had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise. Hence, the petition.

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

The offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. This Court has

3

2026:HHC:7378

quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354A of the IPC in Vidya Devi Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 13724 HP, Ameen Vs. State of HP 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.

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 40 of 2020, dated 07.06.2020, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A and 323 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

4

2026:HHC:7378

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

17th March, 2026 (Nikita)