Apaar Sethi Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Apaar Sethi Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 12.4.2026, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for an offence under Section 281 of BNS, and of the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 12.4.2026, registered at Police Station New Shimla for an offence under Section 281 of BNS, and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Court's answer

The offence punishable under Section 281 of BNS corresponds to Section 279 of IPC.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has already quashed FIRs registered for offences under Section 279 IPC based on compromise (Sushant; Vikas Huda; Kulwidner Singh; Nishant), and those judgments are binding on this Court.

Key takeaways

In view of the binding precedents, the present petition is allowed.ratio¶23
FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 12.4.2026, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. under Section 281 of BNS, and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., are quashed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. MMO No. 439 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Rakesh Kainthla, J.; decided 15.7.2026; not approved for reporting): Petition by Apaar Sethi for quashing of FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 12.4.2026, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. under Section 281 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons. Statements of informant Jaswant Singh and victim Meghnasha, recorded on 15.05.2026, confirmed the compromise was voluntary and that they had no objection to quashing. Holding that Section 281 BNS corresponds to Section 279 IPC, and following its own binding precedents quashing Section 279 IPC FIRs on compromise (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; Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45), the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of; parties may produce a downloaded copy of the judgment instead of a certified copy.

1

2026:HHC:28738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 439 of 2026 Reserved on: 6.7.2026 Date of Decision: 15.7.2026

Apaar Sethi	Versus	...Petitioner
State of HP and another		...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the Petitioner	: Mr Abhinav Advocate.	Mohan Goel,
For Respondent No.1/State	: Mr Ajit Sharma General.	, Deputy Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Mr Abhijeet Advocate.	Singh Chauhan,

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 12.4.2026, registered at

Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 281 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and consequential proceedings

2

2026:HHC:28738

arising out of the said FIR based on a compromise effected between the parties.

It has been asserted that the petitioner and the informant have entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

The statements of the informant Jaswant Singh and victim Meghnasha were recorded on 15.05.2026, in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they had no objection to quashing the FIR based on a compromise.

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

The offence punishable under Section 281 of BNS corresponds to Section 279 of IPC. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the 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

3

2026:HHC:28738

Cases 45 based on compromise . These judgments are binding on this Court.

Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 12.4.2026, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 281 of BNS and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are 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

15^th July, 2026 (Chander)