Allowed¶18

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Jun 2026CRMMO/311/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise; compoundable offences; Section 320 Cr.P.C.; IPC Sections 323, 325, 504 and 201; voluntary compromise; informant/victim statement (Rakesh Kumar); High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Cr.MMO No. 311 of 2026; petitioner Pawan Kumar; precedents followed: Pyar Chand @ Bittu 2022:HHC:9585 and Adarash Kumar Cr.MMO No. 1046 of 2023; Judge Rakesh Kainthla; Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition allowed and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 of 2022 dated 05.03.2022 registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 325, 323, 504 & 201 IPC, and quashing of all consequential criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused; petition and pending applications disposed of accordingly. ¶18

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether F.I.R. No. 23 of 2022 and the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of it should be quashed on the basis of the compromise/reconciliation between the parties.

¶12

Court's answer

Offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

This Court had already quashed an F.I.R. registered for an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC on the basis of compromise (Pyar Chand @ Bittu; Adarash Kumar), and those judgments are binding on this Court.

¶15

Key takeaways

In view of the binding precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 23 of 2022 dated 05.03.2022 is ordered to be quashed.ratio¶18
Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending or initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof are also ordered to be quashed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Single Judge: Rakesh Kainthla, J.) — Cr.MMO No. 311 of 2026, decided 16.06.2026. Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 of 2022 dated 05.03.2022 (Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P.), registered for offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504 & 201 IPC, and consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise, allowed. The informant/victim (Rakesh Kumar), whose statement was recorded on 24.04.2026, affirmed the compromise was voluntary and raised no objection to quashing. The Court noted that offences under Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and that it had already quashed an FIR involving Section 201 IPC on compromise in Pyar Chand @ Bittu & others vs. State of H.P. & anr, 2022:HHC:9585, and Adarash Kumar & Ors. vs State of H.P & Ors., Cr.MMO No. 1046 of 2023 (decided 16.05.2024); holding those judgments binding, it quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings. Parties permitted to produce a downloaded copy of the judgment in lieu of a certified copy.

¶1

2026:HHC:22398

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No. 311 of 2026 Reserved on: 05.06.2026 Date of Decision: 16.06.2026.

¶4

Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr. Aryansh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate, General, for respondent No.1/State. : Mr. Meenakshi Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶5

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge

¶6

The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 of 2022, dated 05.03.2022, registered for the commission

¶7

of offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504 & 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on

¶8

the compromise.

¶9

_______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶10

¶11

2026:HHC:22398

¶12

It has been asserted that the matter has been reconciled between the parties. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter. The matter is private in nature and no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Hence, the present petition.

¶13

Statements of informant/victim [Rakesh Kumar] was recorded on 24.04.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into compromise with the accused voluntarily and he does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. He had no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioner/accused is ordered to be quashed as per compromise.

¶14

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

¶15

The offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC in Pyar Chand @ Bittu & others vs. State of H.P. & anr 2022:HHC:9585 and Adarash Kumar & Ors. vs State of H.P & Ors. Cr.MMO No. 1046 of 2023, decided on 16^th May, 2024, based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶16

¶17

2026:HHC:22398

¶18

6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 23 of 2022, dated 05.03.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504 & 201 of IPC at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioneraccused in pursuance thereto, are also ordered to be quashed.

¶19

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

¶20

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 Website of the High Court.

¶21

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶22

16^th June, 2026. (ravinder)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

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 of Hp Vs Kikkar Singh

State Vs Anwar Singh

Naresh Vs State

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Vishal Dharwal and Others Vs Raman Kumari

Prince Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others