Mehak and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR No. 68 of 2025, dated 10.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNS) at Police Station Kala Amb,

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

2026:HHC:28405

¶14

District Sirmour, H.P. based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶15

It has been asserted that the compromise has been effected between the parties on 30.08.2025 with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The informant and the victim do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

¶16

The statement of the informant/victim Ashwani Kumar was recorded on 09.03.2026, in which he stated that the matter had been compromised between the parties voluntarily without any influence from any person, and he did not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. He had no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS) makes the offences punishable under Section 126(2), 351(2) compoundable. Section 359(3) provides that when an offence is compoundable, and a person is liable by virtue of

¶19

3

¶20

2026:HHC:28405

¶21

Section 190 of BNS, the offence may be compounded. Therefore, the offences punishable under Section 126(2) and 351 (2) read with Section 190 of the BNS can be compounded under Section 359. Section 191(2) and Section 191(3) correspond to Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court has already quashed the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 147 and 148 of the IPC, inter alia, in Sivo Devi vs others vs State of HP 2023 (2), Shimla Law Cases 949, 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 effected between the parties. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶22

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 68 of 2025, dated 10.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed.

¶23

4

¶24

2026:HHC:28405

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶28

14^th July, 2026 (Nikita)

Mehak and Ors. v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehak 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

Gyatari Devi Vs State of Hp

Satish Kumar Vs Sudesh Kumar and another

Robin Dhiman Vs State of Hp and Others

Onkar Chander Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Imtiaz Hashmi alias Bhura Khan

Dolam Chand Vs State of Hp