Allowed¶23

Sahil v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC6 May 2026CRMMO/84/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compromise-based FIR quashing, Himachal Pradesh HC: petition of Sahil allowed; FIR No. 74/2025 (31.7.2025, P.S. Shimla East) for Ss. 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 333 BNS and consequentials quashed after informant/victim Shashi Saini consented. Ss. 115(2)/351(2)/352 BNS compoundable per S. 359(1) BNSS 2023 without court permission; S. 333 BNS mapped to S. 452 IPC; four prior HP judgments followed as binding (Prashant Dharmani 2023(1) Him.L.R.241; Ameen 2023(1) Him L.R.375; Avinash Singh Rana 023 STPL 3181 H.P; Chaman Lal Latest HLJ 2023(HP) (1)213). Judge: Rakesh Kainthla.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 74 of 2025 dated 31.7.2025 registered at Police Station Shimla (East) and of all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR; pending applications, if any, disposed of likewise. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 74 of 2025 (P.S. Shimla East), registered for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 333 BNS, and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶14

Court's answer

The offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of BNS are compoundable under Section 359(1) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) without the permission of the Court.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The offence punishable under Section 333 of the BNS corresponds to Section 452 of the IPC.

¶21

Key takeaways

This Court's prior judgments quashing FIRs for offences punishable under Section 452 IPC on the basis of compromise are binding on this Court.ratio¶22
In view of these binding precedents, the present petition is allowed: FIR No. 74 of 2025 dated 31.7.2025 (P.S. Shimla East) for offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 333 BNS, and the consequential proceedings arising out of it, are quashed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. MMO No. 84 of 2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Rakesh Kainthla, J.; reserved 30.3.2026, decided 6.5.2026; not approved for reporting). Petitioner Sahil sought quashing of FIR No. 74 of 2025, dated 31.7.2025, registered at Police Station Shimla (East), District Shimla, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 333 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties. The informant/victim, Shashi Saini, whose statement was recorded on 25.2.2026, confirmed the compromise was voluntary and raised no objection to quashing. The Court observed that offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS are compoundable under Section 359(1) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) without the Court's permission, and that Section 333 BNS corresponds to Section 452 IPC. Treating as binding its own prior judgments quashing such FIRs on compromise — Prashant Dharmani & others 2023(1) Him.L.R.241; Ameen 2023(1) Him L.R.375; Avinash Singh Rana 023 STPL 3181 H.P; Chaman Lal Latest HLJ 2023(HP) (1)213 — the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings; pending applications, if any, were disposed of likewise.

¶1

2026:HHC:14776

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 84 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.3.2026 Date of Decision: 6.5.2026.

¶4

Sahil …. Petitioner Versus State of HP and others. …. Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Skandh	Sharrma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1-State	: Mr. Ajit Advocate G	Sharma, Deputy eneral.
For Respondent No.2	: Ms. Ranjan vice Mr. Advocate.	a Sharma, Advocate, Vivek Thakur,

¶9

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 74 of 2025, dated 31.7.2025, registered at Police Station Shimla (East), District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 333 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and consequential

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

2026:HHC:14776

¶14

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

¶15

It has been asserted that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding between the parties. The parties have entered into a compromise with each other voluntarily without any influence from any person. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

¶16

Statement of Shashi Saini, the informant/victim, was recorded on 25.2.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence or coercion from any person. He does not want to proceed further with the matter and has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the 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 Section 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of BNS are compoundable under Section 359(1) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) without the permission of

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:14776

¶21

the Court. The offence punishable under Section 333 of the BNS corresponds to Section 452 of the IPC.

¶22

This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC in Prashant Dharmani & others vs. State of H.P. & others 2023(1) Him.L.R.241, Ameen vs State of H.P. & others 2023(1) Him L.R.375, Avinash Singh Rana vs State of H.P. & others 023 STPL 3181 H.P and Chaman Lal vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2023(HP) (1)213 based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶23

Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 74 of 2025, dated 31.7.2025, registered at Police Station Shimla (East), District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 333 of BNS and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:14776

¶28

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

¶29

of the High Court.

¶30

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶31

6th May, 2026 (Chander)

Sahil v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil 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

Gaurav Vs State of Hp

Harsh Rana Vs State of Hp and Others

Tilak Raj Vs State of Hp and Another

Ashwani Mahajan and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ved Prakash and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another