2026:HHC:21230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 478 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Munna Singh and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Ankita, proxy counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. 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 the respondent-State. Mr. Subhash Chander, proxy counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. Isha Thakur, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No. 44/2023 dated 14.7.2023, registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279 & 337 IPC, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioners, as emerge from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings 2026:HHC:21230 2 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 14.7.2023, at about 5:30pm, while he was going towards Nahan from Dilman driving his truck bearing registration No. HP71-9442 and had reached near Chakadavag, he saw a motor cycle bearing registration No. HP17F9665 being driven by petitioner No.1, coming from Naina Tikker side and collided with rear tyre of his vehicle, as a result of which both the driver as well as pillion rider of the motor cycle fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Since complainant alleged that accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, FIR as detailed herein above came to be registered 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 have entered into compromise, whereby they have settled the dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioners-accused have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings in the competent court of law. 4. In terms of order dated 19.5.2026, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS Pachhad, which is silent about 2026:HHC:21230 3 the compromise. Respondent No.2 Pankaj Kumar, who is duly represented by Ms. Isha Thakur, Advocate, stated on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners, whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He stated that FIR is result of misunderstanding because at no point of time, accident occurred on account of fault of the petitioners, rather on account of error of judgment. He stated that since petitioners have already recovered from the injuries suffered by them in the accident, he does not want to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused are acquitted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures on the same. Aforesaid statement is taken on record. 5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak on account of statement made by respondent No. 2, as such, he shall have no objection in case 2026:HHC:21230 4 prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted. 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 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. 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 2026:HHC:21230 5 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. 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 2026:HHC:21230 6 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 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 2026:HHC:21230 7 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.2, 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 petitionesr for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 12. In the case 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 respondent No. 2 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. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 44/2023 dated 14.7.2023, registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279 & 337 IPC along with consequential 2026:HHC:21230 8 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 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge