IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.689 of 2024 Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Jappen Oberoi & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors . … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. Mr. Ravi Tanta & Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocates, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.22 of 2023, dated 09.12.2023, under Sections 498-A, 504 & 34 of IPC, registered at Women Police Station BCS, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived at inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle dispute amicably inter se them. 2. Pursuant to order dated 12.05.2026, petitioner No.2 Dr. Gurvinder Oberoi, father of petitioner No.1 has come present. He states that he has instructions to make a statement on behalf of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners No.1 & 3. Respondent No.4, Ms. Divya Tanta is also present in Court. 3. It is heartening to note that both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, whereby parties have agreed to pay sum of Rs.24,00,000/- in lump sum to respondent No.4 as permanent alimony and thereafter, respondent No.4 and petitioner No.1 shall file joint application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage in a Court, where divorce petition having been filed by petitioner No.1 is already pending adjudication i.e. Family Court, Shimla. Amount, as detailed hereinabove, shall be paid within a period of one month, but application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage shall be filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 in the ongoing divorce petition pending before Family Court within one week, enabling the Court concerned to fix a date for recording the statement of both the parties. Since petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2017, have been living separately on 01.06.2022, coupled with the fact that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and there is no possibility of rapprochement, Family Court, while considering and deciding the application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, shall consider waiving of cooling period in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Bharti Kapoor v . Des Raj, CMPMO No. 271 of 2017, decided on 31.10.2018. 3 4. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to cause presence of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 before Family Court on 26.05.2026, on which date Family Court, taking note of application detailed hereinabove, shall proceed to pass appropriate orders towards dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent inter se parties. However, Court below, while passing final orders in terms of instant order would confirm “whether entire amount agreed to be paid as alimony has been paid to respondent No.4 or not?” 5. Since parties have already compromise the matter inter se them, as has been noticed hereinabove, respondent No.4, who is present in Court of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, states that since parties have settled the dispute amicably inter se them, all the cases filed by her against the petitioners shall be withdrawn after receipt of Rs.24,00,000/- as permanent alimony. She states that as per compromise, she and petitioner No.1 shall file joint application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent. She states that in case the petitioners abide by the afore terms, she shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. Her statement is taken on record. 6. Petitioner No.2, Dr. Gurvinder Oberoi, who is present in Court of his own volition and without any external pressure, states 4 that he has authority and instructions to make a statement on behalf of petitioners No.1 & 3 that parties have amicably compromised the matter, whereby they have agreed to pay a sum of R.24,00,000/- to respondent No.4 as permanent alimony and further undertaken to withdraw all the cases filed by him as well as petitioners No.1 & 3 against respondent No.4 and thereafter, they shall have no claim of any kind or grouse against respondent No.4. His statement is taken on record. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties fairly state that in terms of amicable settlement inter se parties, this Court has no impediment in quashing FIR, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR is 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 petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by respondent No.4 on oath and 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 5 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., as 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 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 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 6 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 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, 7 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 are 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. 14. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners-accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, and 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 petitioners-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. 8 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.22 of 2023, dated 09.12.2023, under Sections 498-A, 504 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station, BCS Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is quashed and set aside. Petitioners- accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 16. Needless to say, it is clarified that in case for some unfortunate reasons, parties are not able to compromise as has been recorded in the earlier part of the judgment, FIR, which has been otherwise quashed in the instant proceedings, shall automatically revive. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2026 (sunil)