IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.388 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Deepak Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, 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. Reena Kumari, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. H.C. Sunil Kumar present alongwith the record. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.189 of 2025, dated 01.12.2025, under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 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.2, Smt. Rishi Rana (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 30.11.2025, while she alongwith her daughter Anjika Rana and son master Aditya Rana were going towards Palakwah on her scooty bearing registration No. PB-24-D-0644 and had reached near Jalgran, a car bearing registration No.PB-74-C-8510 being driven by the petitioner-accused came in high speed and hit her scooty from behind, as a result of which, she alongwith her children fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Since complainant alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be instituted against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has 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 they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings. 3 3. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise arrived inter se parties has been duly acknowledged. Besides above, copy of statement made by the complainant, thereby acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, has been also placed on record. 4. Respondent/complainant Smt. Rishi Rana alongwith her children Ms. Anjika Rana and Master Aditya Rana, who suffered injuries in the accident, have come present and are being represented by Ms. Reena Kumari, Advocate. 5. Respondent/complainant states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. She states that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment. She states that since she as well as her children have recovered from the injuries suffered by them, coupled with the fact that they were duly compensated and taken care by the petitioner-accused, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of 4 petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signatures upon the same. Her statement is taken on record. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statement made by respondent No.2/complainant, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No. 2/ complainant and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 7. 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 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., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 5 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 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 6 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. 10. 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.P.C. 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.P.C 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 7 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. 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 case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner 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 petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 189 of 8 2025, dated 01.12.2025, under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 14. Since it is apparent from the record that petitioner- accused after having hit the scooty being driven by respondent No.2/complainant, fled away from the spot and made no efforts to take the complainant as well as her children to the hospital, this Court deems it fit to impose fine of Rs. 15,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner-accused within a period of two weeks before the District Treasury, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, failing which he shall render himself liable to penal consequences, including proceedings for contempt of Court. Ordered accordingly. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 16. List for compliance on 30.06.2026. 17. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 03,2026 (shankar)