Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:36114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 434 of 2025 Decided on : 14.10.2025 Hem Raj …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, for
respondent No.1. Respondents No. 2 & 3 in person with Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge
( oral
) Petitioner, has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:36114 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 288 of 2022, dated 17.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 307, 326, 341 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioner, due to some misunderstanding, respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioner, the dispute, between the parties, has been sorted amicably. The terms
3 2025:HHC:36114 and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Ext. PX.
6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 7. When put to notice, respondent No. 1State have filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 17.09.2022, at about 2:11 am (night) PSI Rajat Rana I.O. Police Station Balh received a telephonic information that a quarrel matter had come in Medical College Nerchowk. M.O. Medical College Nerchowk found Rajesh (respondent No. 2) fit to give statement.
I.O. recorded the statement of injured Rajesh (respondent No. 2) under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein, he deposed that on 16.09.2022, he and his covillager Mohinder (respondent No. 3) were on the way to Mandi in vehicle TATA ZEST No. HP33E0249. When, they reached at Ghour, near Sharma Industry, then a person had chased them, in his car. When, he has blown the horn of his car repeatedly, in order to give way to him, the driver had taken out the vehicle on the side of the road. 4 2025:HHC:36114 The other person, stopped his vehicle and came out of his vehicle. The said person attacked upon Rajesh and Mohinder, with a sharp edged weapon. As such, a request was made to take appropriate action, upon which, FIR in question was registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8. Today, respondent No.2complainant, as well as, respondent No. 3injured appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding, respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR, in question. According to them, they have compromised the matter with the petitioner, vide Compromise Deed Ext. PX. They have also deposed that in view of the compromise, they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, is respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2, while appearing, before this Court, has categorically
5 2025:HHC:36114 deposed that the matter has been compromised, between the parties. 12. Respondent No. 2victim/complainant in his statement has also deposed that on 03.10.2022, wife of Hem Raj (petitioner) lodged case FIR No. 39 of 2022, dated 03.10.2022, under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 506, 34 of IPC, registered with Women Police Station Mandi, against respondents No. 2 and 3. According to him, now, by way of Cr. MMO No. 435 of 2025, the matter has been compromised in the said case, also. 13.
The registration of the subsequent FIR, by the wife of petitioner Hem Raj is also a crucial fact, which cannot be ignored while deciding the present petition. 14. Moreover, injured Rajesh has categorically stated that neither he, nor, Mohinder Kumar sustained injuries on their vital parts of the body. Mohinder Kumar has also stated that he has not sustained injury on vital part of the body and according to him, no evidence has yet been recorded, in the present case. 15. In such situation, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court is about the fact as to
6 2025:HHC:36114 whether the case registered under Section 307 of IPC, can be quashed on the basis of compromise, so arrived at between the parties, as this objection has vehemently been raised by the learned Additional Advocate General. To buttress his contention, learned Additional Advocate General, has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan & others, reported in (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases
688. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan case (supra), has not created absolute prohibition on the High Court to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS. In this regard, it is apt for this Court to rely upon paragraphs 14 and 15.4 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under:
“14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Shambhu Kewat (supra) is concerned, in the case of Shambhu Kewat (supra), this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court.
In the said
7 2025:HHC:36114 decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the very Bench ultimately concluded in paragraph 29 as under:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. 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 the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. 8 2025:HHC:36114 However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3.
Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising
9 2025:HHC:36114 its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section
307
IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307
IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
10 2025:HHC:36114 permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.
On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence
11 2025:HHC:36114 under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” xxx
xxx xxx 15.4 offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.
It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this
12 2025:HHC:36114 purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove”
(self emphasis supplied)
17. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that it is a case, where evidence has yet not been recorded, as such, there is no permanent prohibition for quashing the FIR, even if the same is registered under Section 307 IPC. Moreover, the injury on the person of Rajesh and Mohinder Kumar is not on their vital parts and there is nothing on the file/reply to show
13 2025:HHC:36114 that there was any intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause death. 18. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Ext. PX, entered into between the parties. 19. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society.
When, the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3 have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 20. When, the parties have compromised both the cases arising out of FIR No. 288 of 2022, dated 17.09.2022 with Police Station Balh under Sections 307, 326, 341 of IPC and FIR No. 39 of 2022, dated 03.10.2022, with Women Police Station Mandi, under Sections 363, 376(2) (n), 506, 34 of IPC, then the sincere efforts made by them, must be acknowledged by the Court by accepting the petition for quashing of FIR. 21. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the
14 2025:HHC:36114 learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 22. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 288 of 2022, dated 17.09.2022, registered with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 307, 326, 341 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 23. The compromise deed, Ext. PX, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 14th October, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)