IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1269 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Satish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Pawan K. Thakur & Mr. Sandeep Sachdeva Advocates, for respondents No. 2 to 8. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 56, dated 06.11.2024, under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) and 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.18 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Satish Kumar, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Sh. Atul Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that he is driver by profession and on 06.11.2024, at about 8.30 AM, he had reached Gumma driving Canter bearing registration No. HP-23-T- 3525. He alleged that he parked his vehicle near Punjab National Bank and engaged labour for getting the vehicle unloaded, but in the meantime, car bearing registration No.HP-12K-3388 being driven by the petitioner in high speed came from opposite side and hit the rear side of the truck/canter, as a result thereof, all the occupants of the car suffered serious injuries. Since complainant, named hereinabove, alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Satish Kumar i.e. petitioner herein, a case under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita came to be registered against him, but since subsequently one of the occupants, namely Sh. Jia Lal succumbed to his injuries, case under Section 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita also came to be registered against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before 3 same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they resolved to settle the dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 3. Though, vide order dated 11.03.2026, this Court had called upon the respondent-State to file status report, but neither status report has been filed nor I.O has come present. However, pursuant to aforesaid order, complainant, injured as well as legal heirs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal, who have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 to 8, have come present and are being represented by Mr. Pawan K. Thakur, Advocate. 4. Respondent No.2/complainant Sh. Atul Sharma states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has come present before this Court for getting his statement recorded. He states that he being present on the spot at the time of alleged accident only informed the police. He states that since injured as well as LRs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal have already compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law, is accepted. While admitting 4 the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature upon the same. His statement is taken on record. 5. Respondent No.3, Sh. Chet Ram and respondent No.4, Sh. Suraj Mani, who being occupants of the car involved in the accident suffered injuries, also state on oath before this Court that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment. They state that since they have already recovered from their injuries and legal heirs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal have compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused, they shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law, is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record. 6. Smt. Amari Dei widow of late Sh. Jia Lal, Sh. Arvind Kumar, Sh. Sahil Kumar son of late Sh. Jia Lal and Ms. Jyoti Kahal daughter of Sh. Jia Lal (respondents No. 5 to 8) also state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioner/ accused, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIR, sought to be quashed in 5 the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment. They state that since petitioner, who had also suffered injuries in the accident, took great care of late Sh. Jia Lal and other injured persons, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record. 7. After having heard the statements made on oath by the complainant, injured and legal heirs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into the compromise, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that one person died on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. He states that while driving the car rashly and negligently, petitioner herein has committed crime against the society and as such, statements on oath, if any, given by the complainant, injured as well as legal heirs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal may not be sufficient to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 6 However, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly admits that on account of the statements made on oath by afore persons, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 8. True it is that in the alleged accident one person has lost his life on account of alleged rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, but careful perusal of the statements made on oath by the complainant, injured and LRs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal clearly suggest that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving, rather on account of error of judgment, if it is so, chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote and bleak under aforesaid provisions of law. Since case instituted against the petitioner is likely to fail in all probabilities in view of the statements given by the complainant, injured and legal heirs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal on oath before this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner in ordeal of protected trial, which otherwise bound to fail. 9. 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious 7 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. 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 of the Code (now section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 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 8 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 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 9 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. 14. 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, respondent Nos. 10 3 and 4/ injured and respondents No. 5 to 8 legal heirs of deceased Sh. Jia Lal 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. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), 56, dated 06.11.2024, under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) and 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.18 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Satish Kumar, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 2. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18,2026 (shankar)