Allowed¶23

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC5 May 2026CRMMO/1266/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashed on compromise between parties; Cr. MMO No. 1266 of 2025; 2026:HHC:14417; FIR No. 94 of 2021, P.S. Kangra, District Kangra; Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC; compoundable offences, Section 320 Cr.P.C.; binding precedents Prashant Dharmani, Ameen, Avinash Singh Rana, Chaman Lal, Vidya Devi, Rakesh Verma; victim statement no objection; quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings; Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; Himachal Pradesh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 94 of 2021 dated 27.7.2021 registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for offences under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, and of the criminal proceedings arising therefrom; petition and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of in the above terms. ¶23

Tilak Raj Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 94 of 2021, dated 27.7.2021, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, and the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶14

Court's answer

The offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

This Court had already quashed F.I.R.s registered for offences punishable under Section 452 IPC and under Section 354 IPC on the basis of compromise.

¶22

Key takeaways

The precedents relied upon are binding on this Court.ratio¶22
In view of the binding precedents, the petition is allowed: FIR No. 94 of 2021 dated 27.7.2021 registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for offences under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, and the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR, are ordered to be quashed.ratio¶23
The victim entered into the compromise with the accused voluntarily, without influence from any person, and had no objection to the FIR being ordered to be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), Cr. MMO No. 1266 of 2025, decided 5.5.2026 (Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; not approved for reporting). Petitioner-accused Tilak Raj sought quashing of FIR No. 94 of 2021 (27.7.2021), P.S. Kangra, District Kangra (Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 IPC) and consequential proceedings, based on a compromise reached through the intervention of respectable persons. The victim's statement recorded on 27.2.2026 confirmed the compromise was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing. The Court noted that Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and relied on its earlier rulings quashing Section 452 and Section 354 IPC FIRs on compromise (Prashant Dharmani, 2023(1) Him.L.R.241; Ameen, 2023(1) Him L.R.375; Avinash Singh Rana, 023 STPL 3181 H.P; Chaman Lal, Latest HLJ 2023(HP)(1)213; Vidya Devi, 2022 STPL 13724 HP; Rakesh Verma, Latest HLJ 2022 (HP)(2) 952), holding them binding on this Court. Petition allowed; the FIR and the criminal proceedings arising out of it were quashed.

¶1

2026:HHC:14417

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 1266 of 2025 Reserved on: 8.4.2026 Date of Decision: 5.5.2026.

¶4

Tilak Raj …. Petitioner Versus State of HP and others. …. Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. : For Respondent No.1-State Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 94 of 2021, dated 27.7.2021, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

2026:HHC:14417

¶14

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

¶15

It has been asserted that the parties belong to the same area. They entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The informant/victim does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

¶16

Statement of the victim was recorded on 27.2.2026, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

The offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC in Prashant Dharmani & others vs. State of H.P. & others 2023(1)

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:14417

¶21

Him.L.R.241, Ameen vs State of H.P. & others 2023(1) Him L.R.375, Avinash Singh Rana vs State of H.P. & others 023 STPL

¶22

3181 H.P and Chaman Lal vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2023(HP) (1)213 based on compromise. This Court had also quashed the F.I.R. under Section 354 of IPC in Vidya Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others 2022 STPL 13724 HP, Chaman Lal vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 213 , Ameen vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others, 2023(1) Him. L.R. 375 and Rakesh Verma vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (2) 952 based on compromise . These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶23

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 94 of 2021, dated 27.7.2021, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:14417

¶28

Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the

¶29

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.

¶30

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶31

5th May, 2026 (Chander)

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp and Another

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

Tulsi Ram Vs Meena Kumari

Ravi Kumar (Surety) Vs State of Hp

Rajinder Singh Vs Hari Singh

Kushal Jethi and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Tanzin Konchog Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.