Dismissed¶26

Savitri Verma and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jun 2026CRMMO/643/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Cr. MMO No. 643 of 2025, decided 17.06.2026, Rakesh Kainthla, J.) — Savitri Verma & others v. State of H.P. & others; quashing of FIR No. 99 of 2017 (PS Kotkhai, Shimla; Ss. 341, 143, 147, 149 IPC) based on compromise refused; informant consented to quashing but victims denied the incident and made no statement about compromise; compromise plea not established; petition and pending applications dismissed; observations limited to disposal, no bearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The victims denied that any incident had taken place; hence, the matter requires adjudication by the learned Trial Court. ¶24

Savitri Verma and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:22549

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 643 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.05.2026 Date of Decision 17.06.2026

¶4

Savitri Verma & others ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶9

For the petitioners : Mr Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3/State. Ms Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 7.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 99 of 2017, dated 16.07.2017, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

2026:HHC:22549

¶17

consequential proceedings arising out of it based on a compromise effected between the parties.

¶18

It has been asserted that respondent No.4/informant entered into a compromise (Annexure P-4) with the petitioners with the intervention of the respectable members of the society. The continuation of the proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose. Hence, the present petition.

¶19

The statement of the informant, Inder Kalta, was recorded on 14.08.2025, in which he stated that he had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the accused, and he had no objection to quashing the F.I.R and proceedings arising out of it based on the compromise.

¶20

The statements of victims, Padam Dev Sharma, Sunil Kumar and Narender Thakur, were recorded on 23.03.2026, in which they stated that no person had given beatings to them and no threats were advanced to them, but damage was caused to the liquor vend.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

2026:HHC:22549

¶24

The victims, Padam Dev Sharma, Narender Thakur

¶25

and Sunil Kumar, have denied that any incident had taken place; hence, the matter requires adjudication by the learned Trial Court. They have not stated anything about the compromise, and the plea taken in the present petition that the matter has been compromised between the parties is not established. Therefore, the petition cannot be allowed.

¶26

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶27

The observations made hereinbefore shall remain

¶28

confined to the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

¶29

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶30

17^th June, 2026. (ravinder)

Savitri Verma and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Verma and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetesh Jain Vs State of Hp and Others

Bimla Bhatia deleted through Rajesh Bhatia Vs Ram Rattan

Surinder Manhas and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roop Hardwares Vs Joginder Singh Chauhan

Satya Prakash Vs State of Hp

Beli Ram @ Belu Ram Vs State of Hp