IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 842 of 2025.

Reserved on: 12.11.2025.

Date of Decision: 22.11.2025.

Irshad Ali ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Ms Meghna Singh, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy and 2/StatCe Advocate General.

For Respondent No.3 : Mr Sanam, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 17/2025, dated 18.7.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 78, 351(2) and 356(1) (sic) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise amicably on the advice of elders and respectable

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

persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition. 3. The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 5.9.2025, in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily without any influence or coercion from any person. She did not want to proceed further with the matter and had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on tuhe compromise.

4. I havoe heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone throuCgh the records carefully.

5. Section 356(1) of BNSS does not provide for punishment but it defines the ingredients of offence. Penalty is provided in Section 356(2) of BNSS. The offences punishable Hunder Sections 351(2) and 356(2) are compoundable under Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The offence punishable under Section 78 of BNS corresponds to Section 354D of IPC. This Court has already quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354D of IPC in Raj Kumar vs State of HP 2022(2) Him. L.R. 1150, Navneet Mehta vs State of HP. 2022(1) Him. L.R. 444, Anil Sharma vs State of HP 2020 (4) Shim. LC 1899 and Kushal Kumar vs State of HP. 2020 STPL 5621 HP. These judgments are binding on this Court.

6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 17/2025, dated 18.7.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 78, 351(1) (sic), 356(2) of BNS at Police Station Woman Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., and consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioneur-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed . o

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

9. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of HHimachal 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. (Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge

22nd November 2025 (Chander)