2026:HHC:20980 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.454 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Jabru and Another ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.12/2025, dated 01.04.2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 01.04.2025, respondent No.2-PX1 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), lodged a complaint at Women Police Station Chamba, alleging therein that 2026:HHC:20980 2 her daughter aged 16 years namely XXX (name withheld to protect the identity) (hereinafter, ‘victim-prosecutrix’) disclosed to her on 31.03.2025 that eight months back, sister of petitioner No.1 took her to nearby forest and thereafter, her brother Jabroo i.e. petitioner No.1 sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that on account of threats extended by petitioner No.1, she was unable to disclose such fact to anyone. In afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioners. 3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record. As per compromise, victim-prosecutrix, who has now turned 18 years, has already solemnised marriage with petitioner No.1 and from their wedlock, one female child has born. In afore background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 4. In terms of directions issued by this Court, Superintendent of Police, District Chamba, has filed status report, wherein factum of compromise has been acknowledged. Along with aforesaid document, which is taken on record, Police besides recording the statement of complainant has also recorded the statement of victim-prosecutrix. Both complainant 2026:HHC:20980 3 and victim-prosecutrix have stated that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused and on account of subsequent development, i.e. marriage inter se petitioner No.1 and victim-prosecutrix, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequential proceedings sought to be quashed are quashed. 5. Besides above, complainant, i.e. mother of victim-prosecutrix and victim-prosecutrix have come present and are being represented by Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocate. Complainant states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that victim- prosecutrix has already solemnised marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their wedlock, one female child has born and as such, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. Victim-prosecutrix states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise 2026:HHC:20980 4 with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, because, at no point of time, petitioner No.1- accused compelled her to join his company, rather she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has joined the company of petitioner No.1. She states that since she has already solemnised marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their wedlock, one female child has born, she does not wish to prosecute the case further. She states that at present, she is living happy married life with her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 as well as her minor child and as such, shall have no objection in case FIR in question along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement made on oath is taken on record. 7. Having heard statements made on oath by complainant and victim-prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that though parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that when victim-prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault, she was minor and as such, accepting compromise in the instant case may send adverse message to the society. He also invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others 2026:HHC:20980 5 versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, to state that compromise in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be accepted, however, he fairly admits that on account of statements made by victim-prosecutrix and complainant, chances of conviction of petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak. 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 (supra) has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC 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. 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 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 2026:HHC:20980 6 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. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case 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 2026:HHC:20980 7 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 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 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. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. 2026:HHC:20980 8 14. Though offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners falls in the category of heinous crime as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Judgment (supra) and as such, this Court should be reluctant in exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS, for quashing of FIR, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, where victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their wedlock, one female child has born, coupled with the fact that she is living happy married life with her husband, this Court in the interest of the victim-prosecutrix, deems it fit to exercise power under Section 528 of BNSS, for accepting the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR. In case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners-accused is not accepted at this stage, great prejudice would be caused to the victim-prosecutrix, who has not only solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1, but also living happy married life, as has been stated by the victim-prosecutrix in her statement recorded before this Court. In case, petitioners-accused are made to face the trial, in terms of FIR sought to be quashed, it is victim- prosecutrix, who would be the ultimate sufferer. No doubt, while exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS, for quashing of FIR, this Court is also required to take into consideration interest of the society at large, but in the present case, interest of victim-prosecutrix appears to be more important than of the society and as such, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while exercising powers under Section 528 of BNSS, deems it fit to quash the FIR lodged against the 2026:HHC:20980 9 petitioners under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act. Moreover, chances of conviction of the petitioners are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by victim-prosecutrix as well as complainant and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are allowed to sustain. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra), FIR No.12/2025, dated 01.04.2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent Court of law, are ordered to be quashed and set-aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. June 01, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge