IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.373 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Pardeep Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, 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. Mr. Ketan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HC Jasbir Singh present in person 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 petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 187 of 2017, dated 02.07.2017, under Sections 341, 353, 332, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Sh. Narinder Patial (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that for the last one year, he has been working as Forest Guard in Beat Panjawar and was also entrusted with the charge of the Forest House. He alleged that on 01.07.2017, at about 9.00 PM, while he was going towards the Rest House for checking, persons, namely Pardeep Kumar @ Pindu and Balvinder Singh @ Gyani, obstructed his path and asked for key of the Rest house. He alleged that when he refused to hand over the key, above named persons gave him beatings, as a result of which, he suffered injuries. In the aforesaid background, FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already 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, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 3 3. Pursuant to order dated 19.05.2026, respondent-State has filed status report, which is silent about the compromise. However, respondent No.2/complainant has come present in Court and is being represented by Mr. Ketan Singh, Advocate. 4. Respondent-complainant states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners-accused have already apologized for their misbehaviour and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future and as such, he shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures upon the same. His statement is taken on record. 5. 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, 4 chances of conviction of petitioners-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. 6. 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 ( 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., since 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( now section 528 of BNSS) 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( now section 528 of BNSS), the High 5 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. 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. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal 6 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( now section 528 of BNSS) 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 not 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 7 Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 11. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by 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/ complainant as well as injured 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. 12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.187 of 2017, dated 02.07.2017, under Sections 341, 353, 332, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 13. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 03, 2026 (shankar)