The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set a clear precedent for quashing criminal proceedings in compoundable offences where parties reach a compromise. In this case, the Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) after the informant forgave the accused, emphasizing that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a young student, was accused of offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). The FIR (No. 29 of 2025) was registered on 8.11.2025 at the Women Police Station, BCS, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the informant.
Key Facts
- The petitioner, realizing the consequences of his actions, apologized to the informant.
- The informant forgave the petitioner and expressed no desire to proceed with the matter.
- The informant’s statement was recorded on 30.3.2026, confirming the compromise was voluntary and without influence.
Procedural History
- 8.11.2025: FIR No. 29 of 2025 registered under Sections 78 and 79 BNS and Section 67A IT Act.
- 30.3.2026: Informant’s statement recorded, confirming the compromise.
- 14.5.2026: Present petition (Cr. MMO No. 194 of 2026) reserved for judgment.
- 27.5.2026: Judgment delivered, quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 29 of 2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, based on the compromise with the informant.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the BNS and Section 67A of the IT Act could be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, particularly when the offences are compoundable under law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relied on binding precedents of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had previously quashed FIRs under Section 354D of the IPC (corresponding to Section 78 BNS) and Section 67A of the IT Act based on compromises.
- It was argued that Section 79 of the BNS is compoundable under Section 359 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and thus, the proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice.
For the Respondent/State
- The State did not contest the compromise or the petitioner’s request for quashing the FIR, as the informant had voluntarily forgiven the accused.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offences and the binding precedents to determine whether quashing the FIR was justified. The Court noted:
"The offence punishable under Section 79 of BNS is compoundable under Section 359 of the 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. This Court has also quashed the F.I.R. under Section 67(A) of the IT Act in Yuvraj Singh Vs. State of HP and anr. 2023 STPL 3185 HP and Vidya Devi Vs. State of HP and ors. 2022 STPL 13724 HP."
The Court emphasized that since the informant had forgiven the petitioner, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. The Court relied on the binding nature of its earlier judgments to conclude that the FIR should be quashed.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashing of FIR No. 29 of 2025, dated 8.11.2025, registered under Sections 78 and 79 of the BNS and Section 67A of the IT Act. All consequential proceedings arising from the FIR were also quashed. The petition was disposed of in these terms, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Lead to Quashing of FIR in Compoundable Offences
- The judgment reinforces that criminal proceedings for compoundable offences under BNS and IT Act can be quashed if the parties reach a compromise.
- Practitioners can rely on this judgment to argue for quashing of FIRs where the informant has voluntarily forgiven the accused, particularly in cases involving Sections 78 and 79 BNS and Section 67A IT Act.
Binding Precedents Strengthen Legal Certainty
- The Court’s reliance on its earlier judgments (Raj Kumar, Navneet Mehta, Anil Sharma, Kushal Kumar, Yuvraj Singh, and Vidya Devi) underscores the importance of binding precedents in ensuring consistency in judicial outcomes.
- Lawyers can cite these precedents to advocate for quashing of FIRs in similar cases, provided the compromise is voluntary and without influence.
No Fruitful Purpose in Continuing Proceedings After Compromise
- The Court’s observation that continuing proceedings after a compromise serves no fruitful purpose highlights the judiciary’s pragmatic approach to compoundable offences.
- This principle can be invoked in cases where the accused and informant have amicably settled their dispute, and the informant does not wish to pursue the matter further.
