The Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that offences corresponding to grievous hurt under Section 118(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, can be quashed based on compromise between parties, reaffirming and clarifying its position in view of Supreme Court authority and Division Bench rulings. This judgment overrules prior contrary state precedent and now stands as binding law for quashing petitions in the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMMO/742/2025 of SUNIL AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010472862025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Rakesh Kainthla) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal law—quashing of proceedings, compoundable offences, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs relating to offences of grievous or simple hurt (Sections 118(1)/(2), BNS) and companion compoundable sections may be quashed upon compromise under inherent jurisdiction, despite prior contrary decisions. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that offences punishable under Sections 118(1) and 118(2) BNS (corresponding to Sections 324/326 IPC) can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers when parties have amicably settled the dispute. The Division Bench ruling in Vimal Kishore @ Vicky applies, which, following Supreme Court cases Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, overruled the contrary view that such offences could not be so quashed. The court cited multiple prior quashing cases within the State, clarifying that the legal barrier posed by the 2013 single-judge decision no longer stands, and compromise-based quashing for such offences is judicially sanctioned. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court jurisprudence on compromise-based quashing; Division Bench overruling of contrary state precedent; repeated acceptance of quashing in similar fact scenarios by coordinate benches; Section 359 BNSS as to compoundability; prior consistencies in treatment of such offences. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No. 83 of 2025 was registered at PS Rohru, Shimla, for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, based on an incident between the parties. The matter was amicably settled by intervention of friends/relatives; both informant and injured stated under oath they had no objection to quashing. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings on the basis of this compromise. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; future benches of the High Court until contrary Division Bench/Supreme Court ruling |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (as harmonious with Supreme Court position); possible persuasive value for pending similar quashing petitions elsewhere |
| Overrules | Kishore Kumar @ Kishore v. State of H.P. & another 2013 (3) Shim. LC 1220 |
| Follows | Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Naushe Ali v. State of U.P.; Vimal Kishore @ Vicky v. State of HP and anr |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies and affirms that offences under Sections 118(1) and 118(2) BNS (simple and grievous hurt) may be quashed on compromise, consistent with established Supreme Court law and Division Bench precedent in the State.
- The prior contrary single-judge ruling (Kishore Kumar @ Kishore) holding such offences could not be quashed on compromise is expressly overruled.
- Procedural bar for quashing FIRs involving grievous hurt (Section 326 IPC equivalent) is now removed in Himachal Pradesh, aligning practice with national precedent.
- Lawyers can now confidently cite this judgment for quashing petitions concerning similar offences, even where the FIR includes Section 118(2) BNS, if the dispute is private and compromise is genuine.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner requested quashing of FIRs for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), and 118(2) BNS, pointing to a genuine compromise between the parties.
- The court examined the compoundability status of the relevant offences under Section 359 BNSS and noted the corresponding sections in the previous IPC regime.
- It addressed conflicting state precedent, particularly the single-judge ruling in Kishore Kumar, which prohibited quashing for Section 326 IPC (now 118(2) BNS) offences, noting this had been overruled by a Division Bench’s reliance on Supreme Court authorities (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Naushe Ali).
- The court listed and reaffirmed its own and coordinate benches’ history of quashing similar FIRs post-compromise.
- The judgment applied settled Supreme Court law permitting quashing in “private” and “personal” disputes not affecting society at large, even if technically “serious.”
- Since parties’ compromise was voluntary and unconditional, judicial intervention to quash the FIR was deemed just and proper.
- All related proceedings were consequently quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The dispute was private and arose from a single incident.
- Both complainant and injured had voluntarily settled the matter without outside pressure.
- Requested quashing of the FIR and all related criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise.
Respondents:
- (State) Appeared through counsel; contents of argument not specified.
- (Private respondents/Complainant and injured) Made sworn statements to court confirming voluntary settlement without objection to FIR being quashed.
Factual Background
FIR No. 83 of 2025 was lodged at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), and 118(2) read with Section 3(5) BNS, arising from a single incident. Both the informant and the injured party later confirmed in sworn statements that they had amicably settled the dispute with no objection to quashing of proceedings against the accused. The petitioners then moved the High Court seeking quashing on the ground of compromise.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) BNS and Section 3(5) BNS, in the context of compoundability provisions of Section 359 BNSS.
- It confirmed that Section 115(2) and 126(2) BNS offences are compoundable.
- Section 118(1) BNS corresponds to Section 324 IPC (simple hurt), and Section 118(2) corresponds to Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt).
- Interpreted Section 359(3) BNSS to allow compounding (and hence, on parity, quashing) in certain non-public interest cases upon genuine compromise.
- The Court harmonized state-level and Supreme Court precedents to clarify the legal position.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed that parties may produce downloaded copies of the judgment before authorities, and physical certified copies would not be required if authenticity is verifiable via the court’s website.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Single-judge precedent (Kishore Kumar @ Kishore) expressly overruled