Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:39634 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 988 of 2025 a/w Cr. Appeal (CSB) No. 12 of 2025 Decided on : 19.11.2025 Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025 Devender Kumar @ Dhani Ram & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents Cr. Appeal (CSB) No. 12 of 2025 Devender Kumar @ Dhani Ram & Ors. …Appellants Versus State of H.P. …Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025 For the petitioners : All petitioners in person, with Mr. Narendra Guleria,
Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional A.G., with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy A.G. for respondent No.1/State. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39634 Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Cr. Appeal (CSB) No. 12 of 2025 For the appellants : All appellants in person, with Mr. Narendra Guleria,
Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional A.G., with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy A.G. for the
respondent/State. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have approached this Court, by way of Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 69/2022 dated 21.02.2022, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered under Section 3(1)(zc) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “SC&ST (POA) Act”), with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., along with judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 05.08.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (Family Court) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the trial
3 2025:HHC:39634 Court”), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. 2. It is the case of the petitioners, in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, that the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, in which, she had alleged that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and had solemnized intercaste marriage with Gopal Singh. The marriage was not socially accepted by the accused personspetitioners, who are close relatives. The complainantrespondent No. 2 had been socially boycotted, on account of her scheduled caste status and she was deliberately excluded from participating in family rituals. 3.
On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 4. As stated above, after completion of the investigation, police has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners in the Court. On 05.08.2025, the learned trial Court, has convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(zc) of the SC&ST (POA) Act
4 2025:HHC:39634 and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 5. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025, passed by learned trial Court, the petitioners in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, have filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2025, before this Court. 6. As per the case of the petitionersappellants, now the matter has been settled between the parties, as, they are from the same family. The terms and conditions of the compromise were reduced into writing and the same has been annexed with Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, as Annexure P4. On the basis of Annexure P4, a prayer has been made to allow the Cr.MMO No. 988 of 2025 and Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2025, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025, passed by the learned trial Court. 7. When put to notice, respondent No. 1State has filed the status report, in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025,
5 2025:HHC:39634 disclosing therein, the manner, in which the FIR in question has been registered and how the police had conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners, which resulted into passing of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025, by the learned trial Court.
8. Respondent No. 2, in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitionersappellants, when appeared before this Court today, has made her statement, exonerating the petitionersappellants from the allegations, which have been levelled against them, affirming that the FIR in question was lodged by her, on account of trivial dispute and now, matter has been compromised between them, as petitionersappellants and respondent No. 2 in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025 are of the same family and they want to live peacefully in the society. The said compromise has been annexed with Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, as Annexure P4.
9. Respondent No. 2 has also deposed that she has no objection, if Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, as well as,
6 2025:HHC:39634 Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2015, are allowed, in view of the compromise and the FIR in question is quashed, as well as,
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025, passed by learned trial Court, are set aside. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitionersappellants separately. 11. Heard. 12. In view of the above factual position, the first and material question which arises before this Court about the fact whether the compromise in the present case can be accepted, as the learned trial Court after the full fledge trial, had passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is being assailed before this Court. 13. Answer to this question is in positive, as appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and considering the fact that the appeal has been admitted for hearing, it can be said that the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court, convicting the petitionersappellants have not attained finality. As such, the plea of compromise can be taken into consideration. While holding, so view of this Court is being guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case
7 2025:HHC:39634 reported as “AIR Online 2021 SC 927, Ramawatar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh”, relevant paragraphs No. 11 to 16, as as under:
“11. The Court in
Ramgopal
(Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non
heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post
conviction, the Courts should, inter
alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held:
“19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” [Emphasis Applied]
12.
In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused. 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate
8 2025:HHC:39634 court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine
qua
non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). 14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and farreaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do
“complete justice”. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr6 has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
“48.
The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice “between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it”. The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and 6 (1998) 4 SCC 409, ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by
“ironing out the creases” in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only disputesettling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law maker and its role travels beyond merely disputesettling. It is a “problemsolver in the nebulous areas” (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991
9 2025:HHC:39634 SCC (Cri) 734] but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subjectmatter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with the subject.”
15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of uppercastes.
The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15
, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twinfold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste based atrocities. 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. Self emphasis supplied.”
10 2025:HHC:39634
14. In view of the statements of the parties, especially the statement of respondent No. 2complainant, who, at one point of time, had lodged the FIR in question, but, when appeared before this Court, has exonerated the petitionersappellants, by stating that the matter has been compromised between them, as they are from the same family and of the same village and they want to live peacefully in the society and to maintain their future cordial relations, this Court is fully satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P4, in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025. 15.
MMO No. 988 of 2025. 15. As per the stand taken by the parties, they are not strangers, but, are from the same family and residents of same village. The respondent No. 2 categorically stated that petitioner No. 1 is her brotherinlaw (Jeth), petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are her sisterinlaw (Jethanies). From this fact, it can be said that they are from the sme family and when she categorically stated that on account of trivial dispute, she had lodged the FIR. In such situation, when the parties had decided to live together peacefully, after resolving all their disputes, their efforts must be
11 2025:HHC:39634 acknowledged by this Court, by accepting the compromise entered on, between the parties. 16. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. The petitioners appellants and respondent No. 2complainant have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter. This Court is fully satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P4. 17. Considering all these facts, Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, as well as, Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2025, are allowed and FIR No. 69/2022 dated 21.02.2022, registered under Section 3(1)(zc) of the SC&ST (POA) Act, with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., as well as, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025, passed by learned trial Court are ordered to be quashed and set aside. The bail bonds and surety bonds, so furnished, are ordered to be discharged. 18. The compromise deed, Annexure P4, in Cr. MMO No. 988 of 2025, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 12 2025:HHC:39634
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh )
Judge 19th November, 2025 (Pramod)