2026:HHC:21302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 557 of 2026 Date of Decision: 3.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gurmit Singh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State. Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, 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. 0135 of 2019 dated 29.6.2019, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376, 452, 506 and 34 of 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 emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings 2026:HHC:21302 2 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that in the year 2017, while she was student of Govt. Girls School Nurpur, she came in contact of the petitioner No.1, who was working as conductor and since then, they had been talking to each other. She alleged that in the month of October, 2018, while she was standing at Jassur bus stand, petitioner No.1 came on a motor cycle and insisted her to join his company. She alleged that petitioner took her to his house, where nobody was present and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that on 28.6.2019, at 10:30am, petitioner behaved indecently and extended threats. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner. 3. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner No.1 along with his mother and sister-in laws i.e. petitioners No. 2 to 4 have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings in the competent court of law. 2026:HHC:21302 3 4. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report, but same is silent about the compromise. However, respondent/complainant has come present in the court along with her mother and is duly represented by Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. She 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 parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. She states that FIR in question is result of misunderstanding and petitioners have already apologized for their behaviour. She states that nothing wrong was done by petitioner No.1 with her coupled with the fact that she wants to settle in her life, as such, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners- accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that petitioner No.1 is accused of heinous crime, 2026:HHC:21302 4 punishable under Section 376 of IPC. He submits that accepting prayer made in the instant case may send wrong message to the society, however he fairly admits that on account of statement made on oath by the complainant, chances of conviction are remote and bleak. True it is that petitioner No.1 herein is accused of heinous crime and in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466, court while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS), in normal circumstances should not quash the FIR on the basis of compromise, however in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, wherein complainant herself is not ready and willing to prosecute the case coupled with the fact that she wants to settle in her life, this court is persuaded to consider the prayer for quashing of FIR along with consequent proceedings. 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 (supra) has specifically held that power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like 2026:HHC:21302 5 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. 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, 2026:HHC:21302 6 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:21302 7 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.2-complainant, 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 petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 2026:HHC:21302 8 12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 0135 of 2019 dated 29.6.2019, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376, 452, 506 and 34 of IPC along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. June 3, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge