IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 657 of 2026 Reserved on: 19.08.2026 Date of Decision 26.08.2026 Ajay Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Anirudh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 72 of 2023, dated 05.07.2023, registered at Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 504, _____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. The parties know each other, and they want to maintain cordial relations with each other. They have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise.

3. The statement of the informant, Ashok Kumar, was recorded on 07.07.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and he does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. 4. The offences punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Section 320(3) of Cr.P.C. provides that when an offence is compoundable, and a person is liable under Section 34 of the IPC, the offences may be compounded; therefore, the offences punishable 3 under Sections 504, 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC can be compounded. 5. This Court has quashed an F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC in Naryan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2022 STPL 9676 HP, and Rajeev Kumar vs State of H.P. & another, 2019(1) Shim.LC22 and these judgments are binding upon this Court. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed, and F.I.R. 72 of 2023, dated 05.07.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 504, 506 and Section 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and criminal proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.

8. 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 4 certified copy but, if required, may verify passing of the order from the website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th August, 2026 (Ravinder)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 657 of 2026 Reserved on: 19.08.2026 Date of Decision 26.08.2026 Ajay Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Anirudh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 72 of 2023, dated 05.07.2023, registered at Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 504, _____________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties. 2. It has been asserted that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. The parties know each other, and they want to maintain cordial relations with each other. They have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise.

3. The statement of the informant, Ashok Kumar, was recorded on 07.07.2026, in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and he does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. 4. The offences punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Section 320(3) of Cr.P.C. provides that when an offence is compoundable, and a person is liable under Section 34 of the IPC, the offences may be compounded; therefore, the offences punishable 3 under Sections 504, 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC can be compounded. 5. This Court has quashed an F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC in Naryan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2022 STPL 9676 HP, and Rajeev Kumar vs State of H.P. & another, 2019(1) Shim.LC22 and these judgments are binding upon this Court. 6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed, and F.I.R. 72 of 2023, dated 05.07.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 504, 506 and Section 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and criminal proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.

8. 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 4 certified copy but, if required, may verify passing of the order from the website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th August, 2026 (Ravinder)