Allowed¶22

Rickey Rana v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Jul 2026CRMMO/349/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla — Cr. MMO No. 349 of 2026, Rickey Rana v. State of HP & anr., decided 20.7.2026 by Justice Rakesh Kainthla. Quashing of FIR No. 12 of 2022 (P.S. Jawali, District Kangra) under Sections 451, 325, 201, 504, 506 IPC on the basis of compromise between parties; compoundability under Section 320 CrPC; victim (Sandhya Devi) statement recorded supporting compromise; followed Abhishek Bhardwaj @ Tinku (2025:HHC:18366) and Rajat Sharma (Cr.MMO No. 1059 of 2025, decided 12.03.2026). Petition allowed; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.12 of 2022, dated 28.1.2022, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 451, 325, 201, 504, 506 IPC, and of the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. ¶22

Rickey Rana Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.12 of 2022, dated 28.1.2022, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 451, 325, 201, 504 and 506 IPC, and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶11

Court's answer

The offences punishable under Sections 451, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The informant/victim stated that she had voluntarily entered into the compromise with the accused without any influence from any person and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR based on the compromise.

¶16

Key takeaways

The precedents of this Court quashing an FIR registered for an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC on the basis of a compromise (Abhishek Bhardwaj @ Tinku; Rajat Sharma) are binding on this Court.ratio¶21
In view of the binding precedents, the petition is allowed and FIR No.12 of 2022, dated 28.1.2022, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 451, 325, 201, 504, 506 IPC, and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR, are ordered to be quashed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise — offences punishable under Sections 451, 325, 504 and 506 IPC held compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC; FIR under Section 201 IPC quashed in view of binding precedents of the Court (Abhishek Bhardwaj @ Tinku and others Vs. State of H.P., 2025:HHC:18366; Rajat Sharma Vs. State of HP & anr., Cr.MMO No. 1059 of 2025, decided on 12.03.2026); informant/victim Sandhya Devi recorded stating she voluntarily compromised without influence and had no objection to quashing; petition allowed and FIR No.12 of 2022, Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., with consequential proceedings, quashed. (Cr. MMO No. 349 of 2026, decided 20.7.2026, HHC; not approved for reporting.)

¶1

2026:HHC:29458

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 349 of 2026

¶4

Reserved on: 10.7.2026 Date of Decision: 20.7.2026.

¶5

Rickey Rana …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶9

For the Petitioner	: Ms Vandana Kumari, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1-State	: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr Khem Raj, Advocate, vice Mr Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.12 of 2022, dated 28.1.2022, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 325, 201, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

2026:HHC:29458

¶15

It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

¶16

The statement of the informant/victim Sandhya Devi was recorded on 5.5.2026, in which she stated that she had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the accused without any influence from any person and had no objection to the quashing of FIR based on a compromise 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 451, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). This Court has already quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC in Abhishek Bhardwaj @ Tinku and others Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:18366, and Rajat Sharma Vs. State of HP & anr. Cr.MMO No. 1059 of 2025, decided on

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:29458

¶21

12.03.2026 based on the compromise effected between the parties. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶22

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No.12 of 2022, dated 28.1.2022, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 325, 201, 504, 506 of IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR 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, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.

¶25

20th July, 2026 (Chander)

¶26

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

Rickey Rana v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rickey Rana 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

Lavesh Goyal Vs the State of Hp

Rajat Kumar Vs State of Hp

Thakur Dutt Sharma Vs Luder Mani

Amar Jeet Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anirudh Singh and Others Vs State of Hp

Ashish Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another