IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 293 of 2026 Date of Decision: 9.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma 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: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur and Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners- accused for quashing of FIR No.114 of 2017 dated 24.11.2017 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kandhaghat, District Solan, H.P. along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2 2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-complainant, who alleged that petitioners had raised loan to the tune of Rs. 31.00 lakh from the respondent/complainant/bank, for raising construction on one piece of land, but subsequently, it transpired that construction was not raised on the concerned khasra number, rather same was used for construction on some other land. Since petitioners failed to re-pay the loan, cheques issued by them for discharge of lawful liability were presented before the bank concerned, however same were dishonoured, as a result of which, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be initiated against the petitioners in the competent court of law, wherein they were convicted. However, subsequently, petitioners repaid the loan and offence alleged to have been committed by them under Section 138 of the Act was compounded in appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Solan. Since petitioners have already paid the entire loan amount besides compensation, coupled with the fact that during pendency of the appeal before the court below, it was agreed inter-se parties that they shall withdraw the cases filed against the petitioners, they have approached this 3 Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO Police Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Besides placing on record copy of compromise, statements made by the petitioners as well as Mr. Umraj Thakur, Manager of respondent No.2-Bank have been also placed on record, perusal whereof, clearly reveals that parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have settled their dispute amicably. 4. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also placed on record communication dated 30.12.2025, issued by the Managing Director of the Bank, which is taken on record, perusal whereof reveals that Mr. Umraj Thakur, Managing Director of the respondent/ complainant/bank, was duly authorized by the head office to enter into compromise with the petitioners, whereby respondent bank after having received entire amount of loan along with compensation has decided to drop all proceedings against the petitioners. Mr. Sharma, fairly states that in terms of amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, he has instructions to state that respondent No.2 shall have no objection in case FIR sought to 4 be quashed is quashed and petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 5. Having perused statement made by Mr. Umraj Thakur, Managing Director, of the bank, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits 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 authorized representative of the bank, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioners are 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 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. 5 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, 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 6 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 in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that 7 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/bank, 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 of the petitioners 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 8 Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the complainant 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.114 of 2017 dated 24.11.2017 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kandhaghat, District Solan, H.P. along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners, who are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. April 9, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge