2026:HHC:22096 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 242 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Pardeep Verma 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. Arun Kumar, Advocate vice Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0184 dated 18.12.2024, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 85, 79 and 3 (5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioners, as emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, 2026:HHC:22096 2 ‘complainant’), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.3 on 18.4.2024 at Village Tihal, as per Hindu Rites and Customs, but after twenty days, her husband left for Canada and thereafter, her in-laws started maltreating her for bringing less dowry. She alleged that her in laws i.e. respondents No.1 and 3 besides causing mental tension also gave her beatings, as a result of which, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. In the afore backdrop, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the petitioners. 3. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could to be taken to its logical end, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings on the ground that no case much less afore provisions of law is made out, however during proceedings of the case, parties have settled their dispute inter-se them, whereby respondent/complainant and petitioner No. 3 have agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. In the afore background, prayer has been made by the petitioners to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise arrived inter- se parties. 2026:HHC:22096 3 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant on instructions of the respondent/complainant, who is present in the court, while fairly acknowledging factum of compromise inter-se parties states that prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR can be accepted and they can be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Respondent-State has filed reply, but there is no whisper, if any, with regard to amicable settlement, rather prayer has been made to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners are accused of heinous crime punishable afore provisions of law. 5. Sh. Pardeep Verma, who happens to be husband of petitioner No.2 and father of petitioner No.3 is present, states on oath that he has instructions and authority to make statement on behalf of petitioner No. 2 and 3. He states that petitioner No.3, who at present is residing in Canada has already executed Special power of attorney in his favour, authorizing him to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law for divorce inter-se petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2. He states that as per compromise arrived inter-se parties, petitioner shall pay sum of Rs.16,00,000/- in total as permanent alimony and out of afore amount, sum of Rs.8,00,000/- has been already paid to respondent No.2 and remaining sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording the 2026:HHC:22096 4 statement of second motion before the learned Family Court. He further states that as per compromise, gold articles belonging to respondent No.2 have been returned and she has also returned the gold ornaments received by her from the petitioners. His statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. Respondent/complainant Ms. Arzoo Sharma, who is being represented by Mr Arun Sehgal, Advocate, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. She deposed that she as well as petitioner No.3 have decided to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent and in the regard, they shall be filing petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the competent court of law for divorce by way of mutual consent and remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be received by her at the time of her making statement of second motion in the competent court of law. She also states that she has received her gold ornaments and at present, she has no claim of any kind against the petitioners. She shall also withdraw the cases filed by her against the petitioners. She states that in view of the aforesaid compromise, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings initiated at her behest, are quashed 2026:HHC:22096 5 and set-aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Her statement is taken on record. 7. Having heard the statements made on oath by Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter-se parties. He states that since respondent/complainant has already made statement before this court that she does not wish to prosecute the case further coupled with the fact that petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 have decided to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent and as such, this court may pass appropriate orders. 8. 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. 2026:HHC:22096 6 9. 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. 10. 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 2026:HHC:22096 7 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. 11. 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 in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013 11 SCC 497) has further reiterated that 2026:HHC:22096 8 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 petitioners for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings because possibility of his conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.. 2026:HHC:22096 9 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 0184 dated 18.12.2024, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 85, 79 and 3 (5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, it is made clear that in case, for some untoward reasons, prayer made by petitioner No. 3 and respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent is not accepted, FIR sought to be quashed through instant judgment, shall automatically revive. Needless to say, competent court of law while granting decree of divorce by way of mutual consent would ensure that second installment of Rs. 8,00,000/- agreed to be paid by the petitioners is paid to respondent No.2. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. June 15, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge