Shimla — A significant legal debate has emerged in the Himachal Pradesh High Court regarding the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs) registered under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
In the matter of Vishal Kishore @ Vicky vs. State of H.P. & another (Cr.MMO No. 81 of 2025), the Court observed conflicting decisions from different Benches on whether an FIR under Section 326 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties involved.
During proceedings on May 2, 2025, the Court noted that a 2013 judgment by a Coordinate Bench in Kishore Kumar @ Kishore vs State of H.P. had taken a strict stance, emphasizing that offences under Section 326 IPC are against society and have serious implications.
According to that ruling, such FIRs cannot be quashed merely because the parties have compromised.
However, subsequent judgments by other Benches in cases like Ram Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. (2016), Naresh Katoch vs. State of H.P. (2019), Kartik Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. (2020), and Naykan Kamdak & others vs. State of H.P. (2020) took a more lenient approach, permitting quashing of FIRs under Section 326 IPC based on compromise.
The Court observed that the earlier Kishore judgment was not cited in these later cases, leading to divergent views within the Himachal Pradesh judiciary on this important legal issue.
Given the conflicting precedents, the Court ruled that this question requires resolution by a Larger Bench to provide an authoritative decision on:
“Whether the Court can quash the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC based on the compromise under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
The matter will now be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to decide on the constitution of the Larger Bench for a final ruling.
Advocate Ganesh Barowalia appeared for the petitioner, Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutheria represented the State, and Advocate Shivam Sharma appeared for the other respondent.
The judgment has been reserved since April 9, 2025, and this recent development signals a crucial step towards clarifying the law on compromise in grievous hurt cases in Himachal Pradesh.
