Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jun 2026CRMMO/1243/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC following a compromise between the parties. The informant and injured confirmed the voluntary compromise. Relying on binding prior decisions quashing similar FIRs on compromise, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 84 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015, Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., and consequential proceedings quashed.

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:20694

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 1243 of 2025

¶4

Reserved on: 4.5.2026 Date of Decision: 1.6.2026.

¶5

Sunil Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …. Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶9

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondents No.3 & 4	: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 84 of 2015, dated 18.12.2015, registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

2026:HHC:20694

¶15

It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise after the filing of the charge sheet before the Court. The informant and the injured do not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise, and they have no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

¶16

The statements of the informant, Anil Sharma and the injured Rakesh Kumar were recorded on 18.3.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they had no objection to quashing the FIR as per the compromise effected between the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

The FIR has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 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

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:20694

¶21

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

¶22

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 84 of 2015, dated 18.12.2015, registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and consequential proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof are ordered to be quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

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,

¶25

may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.

¶26

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶27

1st June, 2026 (Chander)

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Veero Devi Vs State of Hp

Balwinder Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Anr.

State Vs Kanshi Ram

Gurjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Bhag Singh Alias Sanju Alias Pindha Vs State of Hp

Mohit Verma Vs State of Hp and Another