Jagtar Singh and Anr v. State of HP and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No.1118/2025

Date of Decision: 02nd September, 2026.

Jagtar Singh and Anr.

.....Petitioners Versus State of HP and Ors.

…..Respondents.

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Sen, Dy. Advoate General,

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for

respondent No.4.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Una, in Case bearing Registration No.01/2024, titled State of H.P. versus Jagtar Singh and Others, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶2However, during the pendency of the present petition, the matter inter se the petitioners and the complainant has

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? been compromised, and hence, now a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.222/2023, dated 21.08.2023, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and all consequent proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge, Una.

¶3The petitioners/accused, co-accused/proforma respondent No.4, complainant (respondent No. 2), as well as injured/respondent No. 3, who was also allegedly involved in the incident being the business partner of the complainant, all belong to the same village. It has been submitted that the matter inter se the petitioners, proforma respondent No. 4 (co-accused), the complainant (respondent No. 2), and the injured (respondent No. 3) has been amicably resolved with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is prayed that the FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed.

¶4Statements of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and the injured (respondent No. 3) have been recorded today, wherein they have stated that they have entered into a compromise with the accused (petitioners and proforma respondent No. 4) voluntarily, and they do not want to proceed further with the matter on account of the compromise so entered.

¶5Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶6The compromise deeds, Exhibit C and Exhibit D, mention that the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily, of their own free will, consent, and the complainant (respondent No. 2) and injured (respondent No. 3) have no objection in case the case registered by them is ordered to be compromised.

¶7Quashing of an FIR, based on a compromise effected between the parties in cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is permissible. In this respect, reference can be gainfully made to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr.MMO No. 191 of 2025, titled as Kamal Chand and Others versus State of H.P. and Others, decided on

05.06.2025.

¶8A perusal of the record (FIR, summoning order, and the order dated 05.09.2025 whereby charges have been framed) depict that the incident had occurred on the spur of the moment. The complainant (respondent No. 2) and the injured (respondent No. 3) were involved in the incident. It was a private matter and did not affect society at large. The parties want to resolve their differences and reside peacefully, as they are residents of the same village. Therefore, the FIR and proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof can be quashed based on the compromise effected voluntarily inter se the parties.

¶9In view of the aforesaid legal and factual matrix, FIR No. 222/2023, dated 21.08.2023, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Haroli, District Una, and consequent proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge, Una, in Case bearing Registration No.01/2024, titled State of H.P. versus Jagtar Singh and Others, are ordered to be quashed.

¶10The complainant (respondent No. 2) shall deposit the amount, if any, received on account of registration of the case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with the District Welfare Officer, Una.

¶11The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶12Parties 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 certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.

(Bipin Chander Negi)

Judge

02nd September, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)