Allowed¶21

Hemant Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Mar 2026CRMMO/1333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Cr. MMO No. 1333 of 2024 (Rakesh Kainthla, J.; decided 17.3.2026): FIR No. 28 of 2012 (Sections 279 and 337 IPC), Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties, following four earlier decisions of the same Court; consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused also quashed; matter was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, for arguments.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2012, dated 7.3.2012, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and quashing of all consequential criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused; petition disposed of in these terms, along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ¶21

Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 28 of 2012 registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the binding precedents of this Court (where FIRs for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC were quashed on compromise), the petition is allowed and FIR No. 28 of 2012, dated 7.3.2012, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is ordered to be quashed.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending or initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance of the FIR are also ordered to be quashed.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise — FIR No. 28 of 2012, dated 7.3.2012, Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC — parties compromised the matter with the intervention of common friends and respectable persons of society; statements of informant/victim Jagat Ram and victim Kesar Singh (recorded 18.3.2025) and of the legal representatives of deceased victim Mangher Singh (Vijay Kumar, Asha Devi, Subhadra Devi and Kala Devi, recorded 16.12.2025) confirmed the compromise was voluntary and that they did not wish to proceed further — matter pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, for arguments — following the binding precedents of this Court 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, the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused were quashed — petition allowed and disposed of, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of.

¶1

2026:HHC:7375

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 1333 of 2024 Reserved on: 3.3.2026 Date of Decision: 17.3.2026.

¶4

Hemant Kumar Sharma	….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & ors.	….Respondents
Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Sudhir Advocate.	Bhatnagar,
For Respondents No.1	: Mr. Prashant Advocate Gener	Sen, Deputy al.
For Respondents No.2 to 4	: Ms. Ranjana Sh	arma, Advocate.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2012, dated 7.3.2012, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, 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 said FIR based on the compromise effected between the

¶10

parties.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

2026:HHC:7375

¶14

It has been asserted that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the common friends and respectable persons of the society. They want to maintain cordial relationship with each other. The continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law after the compromise. Hence the petition.

¶15

Statements of informant/victim Jagat Ram and victim Kesar Singh were recorded on 18.3.2025, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence from any person. One of the victim Mangher Singh had died after the incident because of cardiac arrest and statements of his legal representatives Vijay Kumar, Asha Devi, Subhadra Devi and Kala Devi were recorded on 16.12.2025 in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise on behalf of the deceased and did not want to proceed further with the matter.

¶16

As per reply filed by respondent No.1-State, the matter is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu for arguments.

¶17

¶18

2026:HHC:7375

¶19

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

¶20

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, 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.

¶21

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 28 of 2012, dated 7.3.2012, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 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.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

2026:HHC:7375

¶25

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

¶26

of the High Court.

¶27

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶28

17th March, 2026 (Chander)

Hemant Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

State Vs Ramesh Chand Anr.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Hp

Piar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Others

Inderjeet Singh @ Indra Vs State of Hp

Sharukh Vs State of Hp

Ramesh Rajbhar Vs the State of Hp