Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Krishan Dutt – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. voluntary compromise by injured parties. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's plea to quash fir on compromise. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. state opposes quashing regulatory driving offences. (Para 5) |
| 4. fir quashed based on compromise and precedents. (Para 7 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. precedents quashed mv act offences on compromise. (Para 8) |
| 6. stare decisis ensures legal certainty and stability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. follow precedents; decline larger bench reference. (Para 13 , 14) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 110 of 2024, dated 23.6.2024. registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the compromise between the parties. It has been asserted that the parties have settled the matter on 1.10.2024 with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The informant/injured does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.
2. The statements of the informant Ashok Kumar and injured Jagdish Kumar were recorded on 20.6.2025, in which they stated that t
Stare decisis binds court to quash FIR under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 on compromise, following consistent precedents, despite regulatory nature argued by State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that goods chargeable under the ADE Act cannot be taxed by the State under a State enactment, and the interplay between general exemption of specif....
A single judge cannot declare a Division Bench judgment null; judicial discipline mandates adherence to higher court rulings, ensuring consistency in legal interpretations.
The principle of constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of claims that could have been addressed in prior proceedings, establishing finality in judicial decisions.
Religious practices are subject to constitutional morality and must not infringe on human dignity or public health, reaffirming the binding nature of higher court judgments.
Consistency in decision-making and the need for cogent reasoning when deviating from previous decisions are essential principles in administrative and judicial decision-making.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
