IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1252 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hitesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, 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. Mr. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.114 of 2023, dated 16.08.2023, under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.14 of 2024 pending adjudication before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2), 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent- State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO PS Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that police after having completed investigation has already presented in the competent Court of law. Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4, who is otherwise present in Court. While fairly acknowledging factum of compromise placed on record, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.4, on instructions, states that she shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the instant petition is accepted and he is acquitted of charges framed against him. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings 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 respondent/complainant No.4 Mr. Pankaj Rana (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 16.08.2023, while he was going towards Una from Gagret driving his motor cycle, Honda Shine bearing registration No.HP83-8756, and had reached near Kotheda Jaswal, a Hero Honda Splender plus motor cycle being driven by the petitioner came from opposite side in 3 a high speed and while taking turn, hit his motorcycle, as a result thereof, he fell on the ground and suffered injuries. 4. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the petitioner-accused under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant, and petitioner-accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably intere se them and as such, petitioner-accused has 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. 5. Vide order dated 24.12.2025, this Court with a view to ascertain the correctness of compromise placed on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence of parties, especially respondents No.4. Besides above, this Court also directed respondent-State to file status report. Respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO PS Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.4, who is being represented by Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably 4 interse them. He states that since accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner-accused, rather same took place on account of error of judgment, he shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record. 6. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by respondent No.4, 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 chance of conviction of the petitioner-accused is very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the respondent/complainant on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 7. 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 5 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? 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 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. 6 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 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 7 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. 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. 8 12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the 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 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.114 of 2023, dated 16.08.2023, under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 25, 2026 (sunil)