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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2024 dated 27.2.2024 of Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. (Sections 279 and 337 IPC) and consequent quashing of criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused arising out of the FIR; petition disposed of along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 26 of 2024, dated 27.2.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

This Court has already quashed F.I.R.s registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of IPC based on compromise, in prior cases.

Ratio / Principle

Those precedent judgments are binding on this Court.

Key takeaways

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed.ratio¶¶22
FIR No. 26 of 2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, is ordered to be quashed.ratio¶¶22
Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are also ordered to be quashed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (single bench: Rakesh Kainthla, J.), Cr. MMO No. 381 of 2025, decided 13.3.2026; not approved for reporting. Petitioner Harpreet Singh sought quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2024 dated 27.2.2024 of PS Dhalli, Shimla, registering offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and of consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise between the parties; vehicles had suffered damage and the matter arose after an exchange of hot words. Informant Jai Pal Thakur (statement 30.5.2025) and Geetanjali, legal representative of injured Gaurav Thakur (statement 9.12.2025), expressed no objection to quashing. Following binding precedents of this Court — Sushant v. State of H.P., 2023 HLJ 531; Vikas Huda v. State of H.P., 2023 STPL 3009; Kulwidner Singh v. Ankush Kumar, 2023 HLR 384; and Nishant v. State, 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 — in which FIRs under Sections 279/337/338 IPC were quashed on compromise, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused, and disposed of pending miscellaneous applications.

2026:HHC:7136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 381 of 2025 Reserved on: 3.3.2026 Date of Decision: 13.3.2026.

Harpreet Singh	Versus	….Petitioner
State of HP & anr.		….Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner	: Mr Advo	Suneet cate.	Verma,
For Respondents No.1	: Mr Addi	Lokender tional Advoc	Kutlehria, ate General.
For Respondents No.2 and 3	: Ms K Ms Advo	iran Kanwa Meghna cate.	r, vice Kashyap,

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2024, dated 27.2.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, 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 compromise effected between the parties.

1

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

2

2026:HHC:7136

It has been asserted that the vehicles suffered damage in the incident. The matter was reported to the police after the exchange of hot words. The parties have settled the matter, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter because of the compromise. Hence the petition.

Statement of informant-Jai Pal Thakur was recorded on 30.5.2025, and the statement of Geetanjali, who is the legal representative of the injured Gaurav Thakur, was recorded on 9.12.2025, in which they stated that they had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

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

As per the report, injured Gaurav Thakur had not expired in the incident, and his death was natural. 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.

3

2026:HHC:7136

State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 based on compromise . These judgments are binding on this Court.

In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 26 of 2024, dated 27.2.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, 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.

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

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.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

13th March, 2026 (Chander)