Dismissed¶19

Baldev Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Jun 2026CRMMO/241/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court dismisses petition for quashing FIR No. 55 of 2025 (S. 75(i)(ii) BNS, PS Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur); quashing on compromise refused because informant denied the incident and never stated anything about a compromise; occurrence of incident left to trial; observations limited to petition disposal, no bearing on case merits; judge Rakesh Kainthla; decided 19.06.2026; 2026:HHC:23178.

What did the court decide?

From the informant's Court statement it is apparent she denied the incident; whether the incident took place is a matter of trial. ¶18

Baldev Singh Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:23178

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 241 of 2026 Reserved on: 27.05.2026 Date of Decision: 19.06.2026

¶4

Baldev Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : M/s Subodh Bhatia and Pranav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, respondent No.1/State. Mr.Atul Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.55 of 2025, dated 18.07.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 75(i)(ii) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh and

¶9

¶10

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

2026:HHC:23178

consequential proceedings arising out of it based on the compromise.

¶15

It has been asserted that the matter has been reconciled between the parties without any influence. The informant does not want to proceed with the matter. Hence, the present petition.

¶16

The informant appeared before this Court on 16.04.2026 and stated that she had made a complaint, but the accused had not done anything to her.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

It is apparent from the statement of the informant that she has denied the incident. It is a matter of trial whether the incident had taken place or not. She has not stated anything about the compromise, therefore, the very premises of the petition that matter has been compromised between the parties and the F.I.R. should be quashed because of the compromise is not established.

¶19