IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.827 of 2023 Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Baby Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.334 of 2021, dated 06.11.2021, under Sections 336, 337 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respective parties, are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Sh. Ramesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 05.11.2021, petitioner, while lopping the branches of ‘Tunni’ tree standing on the boundary of his field, caused damaged to the electric wire, as a result thereof, electric wire fell on the ground, but such fact never came to be disclosed to him as well as other neighbours. He alleged that on the same day, while, he, alongwith his dog, had gone towards the fields for walking, his foot got trapped in the live electric wire, as a result thereof, he alongwith his dog suffered serious injuries. Since complainant, named hereinabove, alleged that his electrocution happened on account of negligence of the petitioner herein, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioner. 3. Thought, at first instance, instant petition was filed to quash the FIR, sought to be quashed, on its own merit, but during the proceedings of the case, parties have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 4. In terms of the directions passed by this Court, respondent No.1 has filed reply, wherein it is averred that incident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the petitioner. Respondent No.2/ complainant though has not filed any reply, but has 3 come present in person and is being duly represented by Mr. Narender Guleria, advocate. He states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that though on account of negligent act of the petitioner, he suffered serious injuries on account of his being electrocuted, but since he has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him, coupled with the fact that petitioner-accused has undertaken not to repeat such act in future and has already apologized for her illegal act, he shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her. His statement is taken on record. 5. Petitioner, who is also present in person, states on oath before this Court that though she had no knowledge with regard to falling of the electric wire on the field of the respondent No.2/complainant, but after the alleged incident, same has been repaired and now with the help and aid of electricity department, pole has been erected, so that no untoward incident happen in future. She states that in future she will take care that no incident happen on account of negligence, if any, of her. Her statement is taken on record. 4 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statement made by respondent No.2/complainant, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No. 2/complainant and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 7. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s 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 S. 482 CrPC ( now section 528 of BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 8. 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 5 that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code( now section 528 of BNSS) is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code( now section 528 of BNSS), the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have 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. 9. 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 6 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. 10. 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 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( now section 528 of BNSS) 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. 7 11. 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. 12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner 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 petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.334 of 2021, dated 06.11.2021, under Sections 336, 337 and 506 of IPC, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her. 8 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 14. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 29, 2026 (shankar)