SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
JYOTI SHARMA AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND ANR – Respondent
CRMMO/1039/2025



Petitioner Advocates:Digvijay Singh Pragti Digvijay Singh ,Respondent Advocate: AG Madhurika Sekhon AG

##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 1039 of 2025

Date of Decision: 3.3.2026

_____________________________________________________________________

Jyoti Sharma and Ors.

……...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for

reportin

g?

For the Petitioners: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional

Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.

Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for

Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate, for

respondent No.2/complainant.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the

ipetitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0035 date 25.5.2023, registered under

Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code in PS Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, as well as

consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the

basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 22:30:35 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as emerges from the

pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings

came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter,

‘complainant’), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with

petitioner No.3 namely Shekhar Sharma on 17.1.2017 and out of their

wedlock, three children were born. Since on account of matrimonial

discord, they were unable to live together, respondent No.2-wife left her

matrimonial house and started rliving with her parents in May 2023. After

her having left the matrimonial house, she lodged afore FIR, alleging

therein that after her moarriage with petitioner No.3-Shekhar Sharma, she

was constantly haCrassed and tortured by the accused named in the FIR for

bringing less dowry.

3. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented

chagllan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its

logical end, petitioner No.3-husband and respondent No.2-wife have

resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In the aforesaid background,

petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying

therein for compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by them.

4. Respondent No.2 states on oath that she of her own volition

and without there being external pressure, has entered into compromise

::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 22:30:35 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle thei.r dispute

amicably inter-se them. She deposed that FIR in question is result of mis-

understanding and since petitioners have apologized for their misbehaviour

and undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future, she shall have no

objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings initiated at her

behest, are quashed and set-aside and the accused are acquitted of the

charges framed against them. She sh all also withdraw all the cases filed at

her behest against the petitionerrs on account of amicable settlement. Her

statement is taken on record.

5. Petitioners namely Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Ms. Shikha Sharma, Mr.

Shekhar Sharma Cand Ms. Suresh Rani, who are present in the Court, while

fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise also state that in

terms of hthe compromise arrived inter-se parties, they shall take due care of

the respondent/complainant and in no eventuality, she will be

harassed/maltreated. Petitioner No.3 Shekhar Sharma, states on oath that

he being husband of the respondent/complainant would ensure that all

basic necessities of his wife as well as children are met with and he lives

happily with them. Their such statement made on oath is taken on record.

6. Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2-

complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General

::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 22:30:35 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top