2026:HHC:20382 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO Nos. 1150 of 2025 & 543 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MMO No. 1150 of 2025 Pawan Chauhan and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents 2. Cr.MMO No. 543 of 2026 Manoj and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhairav Gupta and Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocates, for the petitioners in CrMMO No. 1150 of 2025 and for complainant in CrMMO No. 543 of 2026. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State, in both the petitions. Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate, for the respondent/complainant in CrMMO No1150 of 2025 and for the petitioners in CrMMO No. 543 of 2026. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2026:HHC:20382 2 Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 78/2022 dated 13.9.2022, under Sections 451, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 147 of IPC and FIR No.77/2022 dated 13.9.2022 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, 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. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR No. 78 of 2023 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent- complainant Sh. Manoj Kumar (respondent No.2 in CrMMO No. 1150 of 2025 and petitioner No.1 in CrMMO No.543 of 2026), alleging therein that on 13.9.2022, while he along with Surjeet Kumar and labourers was plucking apples in his orchard, persons namely Pawan Kumar, Kanta Devi, Raj Kumar, Meenu Devi and Abhishek Kumar, unnecessarily picked up quarrel with them and thereafter attempted to throw away their apple crates lying in the fields. Complainant alleged that when his labourer Jogi Khatri asked them to not throw the apple crates, all of them started giving 2026:HHC:20382 3 beatings to him with sticks/dandas and thereafter they entered his courtyard and started beating them with sticks. Complainant alleged that accused named in the FIR also caused damage to the glass of their windows and doors. In the afore background, afore FIR under the relevant provisions of law came to be instituted against the persons named herein above, who are petitioners before this Court in CrMMO No. 1150 of 2025. 3. FIR No. 77 of 2022 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 Pawan Chauhan, in CrMMO No.543 of 2026, alleging therein that on 13.9.2022, while he was loading apples in the truck and when the driver of truck was coming back after turning the vehicle at Nagpuri, persons namely Manoj Kumar (petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in CrMMO No. 1150 of 2025) parked his vehicle in middle of the road, as a result of which, vehicles could not cross. Complainant alleged that driver called him at 5PM and told him that on account of wrong parking done by Manoj, vehicles are unable to pass. Complainant alleged that thereafter he reached on the spot and when he asked Manoj to remove the vehicle, he started claiming that he had parked his vehicle on his land and no vehicle would go from there. Complainant alleged that Manoj started abusing him and suddenly, persons namely Surjeet, Manoj, Krishan, Ranjeet and other persons started giving beatings to him. Complainant 2026:HHC:20382 4 alleged that during altercation, they also gave beatings to Abhishek Kumar (respondent No.3) with stick and darat, as a result of which, he suffered serious injuries. In the aforesaid background, FIR No. 77 came to be lodged against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of law. 4. Though at the first instance, petitioners in both the cases, approached this Court for quashing of FIRs, as detailed herein above, on merit, but during proceedings of the case, they decided to resolve their matter amicably and as such, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 22.5.2026, passed in CrMMO No. 1150 of 2025, summoned both the parties in the Court. 5. Complainants namely Manoj Kumar, Pawan Chauhan and Abhishek Chauhan on oath state that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. They state that since petitioners have apologized for their behavior and undertaken not to repeat such act in future, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 77 and 78 of 2022 as well as consequent proceedings is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2026:HHC:20382 5 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, having heard aforesaid statements made by the complainants in both the cases, states that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIRs sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter-se parties. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners in view of the aforesaid statements made on oath by the complainants are very remote and bleak and as such, prayer made in the instant petitions may be accepted. 7. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIRs’ 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 Section 482 CrPC (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. 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 2026:HHC:20382 6 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 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 2026:HHC:20382 7 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. 10. The Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 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 2026:HHC:20382 8 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. 11. 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 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. In the cases at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the complainants have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 13. 13. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and the complainants, at whose instance FIRs sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged, are no more interested in pursuing 2026:HHC:20382 9 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 alongwith all consequential proceedings. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 78/2022 dated 13.9.2022, under Sections 451, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 147 of IPC and FIR No.77/2022 dated 13.9.2022 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. May 27, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge