IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 1039 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Jyoti Sharma and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2/complainant. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0035 date 25.5.2023, registered under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in PS Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties. 2 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, 8complainant9), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.3 namely Shekhar Sharma on 17.1.2017 and out of their wedlock, three children were born. Since on account of matrimonial discord, they were unable to live together, respondent No.2-wife left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents in May 2023. After her having left the matrimonial house, she lodged afore FIR, alleging therein that after her marriage with petitioner No.3-Shekhar Sharma, she was constantly harassed and tortured by the accused named in the FIR for bringing less dowry. 3. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner No.3-husband and respondent No.2-wife have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by them. 4. Respondent No.2 states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure, has entered into compromise 3 with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. She deposed that FIR in question is result of mis- understanding and since petitioners have apologized for their misbehaviour and undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future, she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings initiated at her behest, are quashed and set-aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. She shall also withdraw all the cases filed at her behest against the petitioners on account of amicable settlement. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Petitioners namely Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Ms. Shikha Sharma, Mr. Shekhar Sharma and Ms. Suresh Rani, who are present in the Court, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise also state that in terms of the compromise arrived inter-se parties, they shall take due care of the respondent/complainant and in no eventuality, she will be harassed/maltreated. Petitioner No.3 Shekhar Sharma, states on oath that he being husband of the respondent/complainant would ensure that all basic necessities of his wife as well as children are met with and he lives happily with them. Their such statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General 4 states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted. 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 S. 482 CrPC 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 Hon9ble 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, Hon9ble Apex Court has 5 returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code 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, 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 6 matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 10. The Hon9ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon9ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC 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 Hon9ble 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. Hon9ble 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. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2-complainant, at whose instance, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings because possibility of their conviction is remote/bleak 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 Hon9ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 0035 date 25.5.2023, registered under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in PS Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside. Accused 8 are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. March 3, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge