Allowed

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CRMMO/645/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed FIR No. 140 of 2025 and all consequential proceedings after the informant and injured person recorded statements confirming a voluntary compromise with the petitioner. The court relied on its prior judgments holding that offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC (corresponding to Sections 281 and 125(a) BNS) are compoundable and can be quashed on compromise.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 140 of 2025 dated 24.08.2025 registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:39859

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 645 of 2026 Reserved on: 10.09.2026 Date of Decision 18.09.2026

¶4

Tilak Raj ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr Skandh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.

¶10

Mr Vaibhav, Advocate, vice Mr Ranjana Sharma, Advocate, respondents No.2 and 3.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 140 of 2025 dated 24.08.2025, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023 and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) and

¶13

¶14

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

2026:HHC:398592

consequential proceeding arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties.

¶19

It has been asserted that a compromise has been effected between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The informant and the injured do not want to proceed with the matter after the compromise to maintain a cordial relationship between them. Hence, the petition.

¶20

Statements of informant Gurmail Singh and injured Gulshan Kumar were recorded on 27.07.2026, in which they stated that they had compromised the matter with petitioner/accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection in case the F.I.R. and proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed.

¶21

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

¶22

In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

¶23

¶24

2026:HHC:398592

¶25

125(a) and 281 of BNS, which correspond to Sections 337 and 279 of IPC, respectively.

¶26

The offences punishable under Section 125(a) of IPC are compoundable under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HHC 531, Vikas Huda vs State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45, Ashish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another:2024:HHC16368, based on compromise . These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶27

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and F.I.R. No. 140 of 2025, dated 24.08.2025, registered at Police

¶28

Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS and Section 187 of the M.V. Act and consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. are quashed.

¶29

¶30

2026:HHC:398592

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶34

18^th September, 2026 (Ravinder)

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Raj v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases