IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.493 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Amar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.327 of 2021, dated 19.10.2021 under Sections 363, 354, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 43-S/20/21, titled State vs. Amar Singh, pending adjudication in the Court of learned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted at the behest of respondent No.3 Sh. Gurcharan Singh, (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 18.10.2021, at about 11.00 AM, while his daughter, aged 15 years, i.e. victim/prosecutrix (named withheld to protect her identity) was going towards the fields, accused namely Amar Singh came on the spot driving vehicle bearing registration No.HP-12-H-8691 and forcibly pulled his daughter in his vehicle. He alleged that persons, namely Sanjeev Kumar, Ravi Kumar and Achhar Chand, who at the relevant time were standing there, attempted to stop the afore vehicle being driven by the accused, but by that time, accused succeeded in fleering from the spot alongwith his daughter. He further alleged that he immediately reported the matter to the father of the accused, who, though kept on assuring him that within one or two hours, they would hand over his daughter to him, but since his daughter had not come back, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against the accused, named in the FIR. In the afore background, FIR came to be instituted against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has 3 already presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby victim/prosecutrix as well as petitioner have solemnized marriage. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings. 3. Though, vide order dated 20.05.2026, this Court had directed the respondent-State to file status report, but neither the status report has been filed nor factum with regard to compromise has been verified. 4. On the other hand, victim/prosecutrix and her father have come present and are being represented by Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. Respondent No.3/complainant, namely Sh. Gurcharan Singh, states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressures has entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that since his daughter/victim/prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner-accused, named in the FIR, and both of them are living happy marriage life, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside and accused, named in the FIR, is acquitted of the charges 4 framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature. His statement is taken on record. 5. Respondent No.2/victim/prosecutrix states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, has solemnized marriage with the accused i.e. petitioner herein and as such, shall have no objection in case FIR, which came to be lodged on account of misunderstanding, is quashed and set aside. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is result of misunderstanding because she was never compelled by the accused, named in the FIR, to join his company, rather from day one, she intended to solemnize marriage with him. She states that since after her marriage with the petitioner, she is living happy married life and both the families have reconciled the matter and as such, she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside and accused, named in the FIR, is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits his signature. Her statement is taken on record. 6. After having heard the statements made by the petitioner as well as victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though victim/prosecutrix, after having 5 attained majority, has now solemnized marriage with the petitioner- accused, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that at the time of commission of the offence, victim/prosecutrix was minor. He states that accepting compromise in such like cases may send a wrong signal to the society. However, he fairly states that on account of statement made by the complainant before this Court as well as trial Court, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. True it is that petitioner herein is accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 363, 354, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that after loding of the FIR sought to be quashed, victim/prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and at present is residing with him. No doubt, at time of the commission of offence, victim/prosecutrix was minor, but now after having attained majority, she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner, as is evident from the documents placed on record, which fact has been otherwise fairly acknowledged by the complainant. Moreover, this Court finds that complainant has been declared hostile before the trial Court because in his statement given to the Court below, he has categorically stated that on the date of alleged incident, victim/prosecutrix had gone with the petitioner with his permission and no wrong had been committed upon her. 6 8. 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 Cr.PC ( now section 528 of BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious 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”. Since in the present case, victim/prosecutrix has attained majority and she has already solemnized marriage with petitioner, this Court is of the view that it may not be in the interest of both the parties to continue with criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the father of victim/prosecutrix. 9. 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 BNSS) is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, 7 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. 10. 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 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. 8 11. 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.PC. 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.PC ( now section 528 of BNSS) 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 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. 12. 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 9 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. 13. Since, in the case at hand, respondent No.2/victim has already solemnized marriage with petitioner and she is living happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to sustain may disturb the happy married life of petitioner and respondent No.2/victim. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of victim/prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioner /accused is left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable under Sections 363, 354, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, ultimate loser would be respondent No.2/victim and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of petitioner- accused and as such, this court 10 sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioner for quashing of FIR. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.327 of 2021, dated 19.10.2021 under Sections 363, 354, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 43-S/20/21, titled State vs. Amar Singh, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 27, 2026 (shankar)