2026:HHC:9377 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1095 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sh. Khima Ram and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Ms. Neelam Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No.51/2024, dated 18.06.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-D, 506, 427 and 201 of the IPC, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 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-Ms. Narvada Devi (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that for last few days, petitioner No.1-Mr. 2026:HHC:9377 2 Khima Ram, who is working as JBT, has been behaving indecently with her. She alleged that above named person gave her telephonic call and made indecent comments. She alleged that one month back, aforesaid person had come to her house to repair the dish and at that time, he had also behaved indecently. Complainant alleged that above named person repeatedly gave her telephonic calls, sometime from the phone number of his wife, and sometime from the phone number of his son. She alleged that she had disclosed aforesaid factum of indecent behaviour to her husband and her brother-in-law Gulshan Kumar. She further alleged that Khima Ram met her husband and brother-in-law at a place called Sarla and when he was asked about his aforesaid indecent behaviour, he not only abused, but also attempted to give beatings to her husband as well as her brother- in-law. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be instituted 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 ends, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise and as such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 2026:HHC:9377 3 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed detailed reply, which is silent about compromise. Complainant is present in person and is being represented by Ms. Neelam Thakur, Advocate. She states since FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already apologized for their misconduct, she shall have no objection in case FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. Her statement made on oath is taken on record. 5. Petitioner No.1-Mr. Khima Ram has also come present and is being represented by Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocate. He states that today he has come present in the Court in connection with quashing of FIR No.51 of 2024, in which he is one of co-accused and he has compromised the matter with the complainant. Besides this, another FIR was also lodged at his behest i.e. FIR No.52 of 2024, dated 18.06.2024 under sections 341, 323, 427, 325, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 192 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, at Police Station Anni, and he has compromised the matter with the accused in that case also, in which he is complainant. He undertakes that he shall have no objection in case the accused in aforesaid FIR approaches this Hon'ble Court for quashing of FIR and shall also come 2026:HHC:9377 4 present before this Hon'ble Court to make statement. His statement made on oath is also taken on record. 6. Having heard statement made on oath by complainant as well as petitioner No.1, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter se petitioners and respondents. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners are very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. 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 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 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 2026:HHC:9377 5 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 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 2026:HHC:9377 6 matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 10. 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 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. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and 2026:HHC:9377 7 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 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 parties 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. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and 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. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.51/2024, dated 18.06.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-D, 506, 427 and 201 of the 2026:HHC:9377 8 IPC, along with consequential 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. March 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge