IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1023 of 2025

Reserved on: 18.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026.

Jagroop Singh & others ....Petitioners

Versus

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

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the petitioners : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional

Advocate General, for respondent

No. 1/State.

:

Ms. Narvada, Advocate, for

respondent No. 2 and 3.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present petition has been filed for quashing of

F.I.R. No.34 of 2023, dated 09.04.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Mehatpur, District Una, H.P., and consequential

_______________

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise.

2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise to maintain cordial relation with each other. No fruitful purpose would be servfed by continuing the proceedings. Hence, the present petition.

3. Statements of inftormant/injured Mandeep Singh and injured Pankaj Kumar were recorded on 13.11.2025, in which they stated that the matter had been compromised with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and they had no objection if the FIR lodged against the petitioners/accused is ohrdered to be quashed.

g4. The police have filed a status report reproducing the icontents of the F.I.R. and the steps taken during the course of the investigation.

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

6. The offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Section 320 (3) of Cr.P.C. provides that where the offences are compoundable and the accused are liable by virtue of Section 34 or 149 of IPC, the offence may be compounded, therefore, offences punishable under Sections 323 and 34.1 read with Section 34 of IPC can be compounded under Section 320 of CrPC. 7. The matter regarding the qufashing of FIR, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, was referred to the Larger Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench held in Vimal Kishore @ Vicky vs. State of HP and anr in Cr.MMO No. 81 of 2025, decided on 22.05.2025, that the matter was covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narinder Singh Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014 (6) SCC 446 and Naushe Ali Vs. State of U.P. 2025 (4) SCC 78 and contrary judgment of this Court in Kishore Kumar @ Kishore vs State of H.P. & another 2013 (3) Shim. LC 1220 holding that the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC cannot be compounded is deemed to have been overruled.

8. This Court has already held in Ram Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. 2016(4) Him. L.R. 2157, Naresh Katoch vs. State of H.P. & another 2019 (Suppl.) Him L.R. 2656, Kartik Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. 2020 STPL 4914 H P and Naykan Kamdak &

others vs. State of H.P. 2020 STPL 6334 HP that the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC can be quashed because of the compromise effected between the parties. The s.ole judgment to the contrary in Kishore Kumar alias Kishore Vs. State of H.P. 2013 (3) Shimla Law Case 1220, taking a contrary view is deemed to have been overruled as per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

9. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC in Ram Krishan alias Ramu vs. State of H.P.& others Latest HLJ 2021(2)(HP) 1327, Amir Hussain vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022(1)Him.L.R.195, Braham Dass & others vs. State of H.P & others 2022(1) Him.L.R.466, Inderjeet Singh & others vs State of H.P. & others 2022(2)Him.LR.1217, Raj Kumar @ Raj & O