2026:HHC:20988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.511 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Ganesh Kumar 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: Ms. Anuja Mehta, 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. Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6. _________________________________________________________________________ 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.144/2021, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 304 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, 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 FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4-Uday Singh (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 08.09.2021 at 10:00 pm, while he, 2026:HHC:20988 2 along with his friends Happy Singh, Sushil Kumar and Arjun Singh, was going towards Suradwa, driving his tractor, person, namely, Happy Singh asked them to stop the tractor, as he had to answer the nature’s call. Complainant alleged that he stopped the tractor, whereafter Happy Singh went towards fields, but in few minutes, they heard cries of Happy Singh and found that he was trapped in the electric wire allegedly put by petitioners to protect their crops from the wild animals. Since Happy Singh died on account of being electrocuted, case against petitioners Ganesh Kumar and Tilak Raj, under relevant provisions of law, came to be lodged. 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 and as such, 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. Though time was granted to respondents-State to file status report, but same has not been filed within the stipulated time, on account of on-going Gram Panchayat elections. Complainant-Uday Singh as well as persons namely Prem Singh and Asha Devi, respondents No.5 and 6 herein, who happen to be parents of deceased Happy Singh, have come present and are being represented by Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. They state on oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external 2026:HHC:20988 3 pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, because unfortunate incident did not happen on account of rash and negligent act, if any, of petitioners, who had simply fixed electric wires to protect their crops from wild animals. They state that after the demise of deceased-Happy Singh, petitioners not only render proper assistance, but they are still taking care of them and as such, they do 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, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their joint statement made on oath is taken on record. 5. After having heard afore statement made on oath by complainant as well as parents of deceased, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 one person has lost his life on account of rash and negligent act of the petitioners. However, Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly admits that on account of statements made on oath by respondents No.4 to 6, chances of conviction of petitioners are very remote and bleak. 2026:HHC:20988 4 6. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR 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 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. 7. 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 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. 2026:HHC:20988 5 8. 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. 9. 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 2026:HHC:20988 6 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. 10. 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. 11. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.4, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing 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 along with all consequential proceedings. 12. 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.144/2021, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 304 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, 2026:HHC:20988 7 along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. June 01, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge