2025:HHC:22695 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 286 of 2025 Reserved on: 8.7.2025 Date of Decision: 15.7.2025. Malkiyat Singh @ Rinku ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents No.2 to 6 : Ms. Gayatri, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 51 of 2018, dated 10.4.2018, registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. It has been asserted that the dispute occurred due to a misunderstanding between the parties. An FIR 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:22695 No. 52 of 2018, dated 10.4.2018, was registered by the opposite party. The parties have settled the matter to maintain cordial relations between them. Hence, the petition for quashing the FIR. 2. The police filed a status report asserting that the informant, Ankush Sharma, was removing the trolley from the tractor on 9.4.2018 at 5.45 PM when Malkiyat Singh started abusing him and inquired from him as to why he (Ankush) had stopped driving his Tractor. Malkiyat Singh took out a spade from the trolley and inflicted injury on Sanjay Kumar’s head. Sanjay Kumar was taken to the hospital. The Medical Officer stated that the injuries were grievous and dangerous to life. Sanjay Kumar succumbed to his injuries subsequently, and Section 302 of the IPC was added. The charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 33 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, out of whom 04 have been examined. Hence, the status report. 3. The statements of informant Ankush Sharma and Sudesh Kumari, mother of Sanjay Kumar, were recorded on 8.5.2025, in which they stated that the matter had been compromised with the accused voluntarily, and they had no 3 2025:HHC:22695 objection in case the FIR is quashed based on the compromise between the parties. 4. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No.1-State and Ms. Gayatri, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6. 5. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the parties have settled the matter. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the present proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. 6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State, submitted that Sanjay Sharma has succumbed to the injuries. The offence is heinous and cannot be quashed based on the compromise. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. Ms. Gayatri, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6, submitted that the informant had no objection in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR is ordered to be quashed. 4 2025:HHC:22695 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. In the present case, Sanjay Kumar has succumbed to injuries, and Section 302 of the IPC was added to the list of offences. 10. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 78 that an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC cannot be compounded as it affects the public at large. It was observed: 21. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706], after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and other judgments, this Court held : (Laxmi Narayan case [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706], SCC pp. 704-705, para 15) “15. 704-705, para 15) “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 5 2025:HHC:22695 15.2. Such 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. 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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 a compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307IPC 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 307IPC 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 307IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether the incorporation of Section 307IPC is for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which, if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307IPC. 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/delicate parts of the body, the 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 6 2025:HHC:22695 (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5 [Ed. Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-4- 2019. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is impermissible to quash the FIR for the commission of murder based on compromise. 12. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th July, 2025 (Chander)