IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.512 of 2022 Date of Decision: 05.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Prem Lal & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma and Mr. Saurav Upadhyay, Advocates, for respondent No.4. HC Brij Mohan No.3, Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners-accused (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No.49 of 2020, dated 21.06.2020, under Section 336 of IPC, registered at Police Station Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, as well as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 consequent proceedings pending adjudication before competent Court of law. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, who at the relevant time was SDO, Electrical Sub-Division, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that he, along with Junior Engineer Navgaon, line staff, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Chakhar and Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat Aslu, visited the spot to re-establish the service wire, but on the spot, it transpired that service wire was tampered with by accused No.1 without any intimation to HPSEBL. In afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the accused. 3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law. During proceedings of the case, it transpired that service wire, which was allegedly removed by accused No.1 from the hook fixed to his house, has now been 3 removed from the accused property and one electric pole has been installed on the spot for fixing the wire. Taking note of aforesaid development, coupled with the fact that accused were ready and willing to tender apology for their illegal act, this Court passed detailed order on 30.03.2026, which reads as under:- “In terms of order dated 06.03.2026, Electricity Board and respondent-State has placed on record instructions, perusal whereof reveals that at present service connection of Sh. Mohal Lal is being fed from the 63KVA Chakhar 2nd DTR through the service wire emanating from the existing pole No.8 of 3-phase LT Line. The length of service wire from said pole is approximately 40 meters, which extended apart from the premises of Sh. Prem Lal having adequate ground clearance, meaning thereby, at present, no wire is connected to the hooks earlier placed on wall of the building of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent/Electricity Board states that in case petitioner gives an undertaking before this Court that in future he will not indulge in illegal activities as has been done by him in past, it shall have no objection in accepting the prayer made through instant petition. In view of the above, let complainant as well as petitioner come present before this Court on the next date of hearing. List on 05.05.2026. SHO, PS Darlaghat is directed to apprise with regard to passing of instant order so that complainant comes present before this Court on the next date of hearing.” 4. It is apparent from the aforesaid order that on afore date, learned counsel for the respondent/Electricity Board, on instructions of respondent No.4, stated that in case accused No.1 gives an undertaking before this Court that in future, he will not indulge in 4 illegal activities as has been done by him in past, it shall have no objection in accepting the prayer made through instant petition. Since on the previous date, complainant, at whose behest FIR sought to be quashed was lodged, was not present, this Court adjourned the matter for today’s date, enabling the SHO, PS Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, to apprise the complainant with regard to aforesaid development so that his statement could be recorded. 5. Pursuant to order dated 30.03.2026, accused as well as Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, the then SDO, and Mr. Parkash Chand Sharma, Senior Assistant, O/o Electrical Sub-Division, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, have come present and are being represented by their respective counsel. Mr. Om Parkash Sharma states on oath that on account of undertaking given by the accused that they shall not indulge in such activities as has been done by them in past, coupled with the fact that Electricity Department has no objection in accepting the apology tendered at the behest of accused, he shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record. 5 6. Mr. Parkash Chand states on oath that he has instructions to state on behalf of respondent No.4 that in case accused furnish an undertaking that they shall not tamper with the electricity wire in future, Electricity Department shall have no objection in case prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record. 7. Accused No. 1, Prem Lal, who is present in person also states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has apologized for his illegal act and further undertake that he shall not indulge in illegal activity and tamper with the electricity wire, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. 8. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Mr. Prakash Chand and accused No.1, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of 6 statement made by the complainant on oath, as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 9. The question, which now needs consideration is “whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Code”) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society? 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have 7 settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences. 11. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court to compound 8 the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 9 14. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the accused and complainant have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.49 of 2020, dated 21.06.2020, under Section 336 of IPC, registered at Police Station Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05, 2026 (sunil)