2026:HHC:25818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.255 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Mohinder Singh and others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(c) and 3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 231 of 2020, dated 23.07.2020, under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25818 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. Manjeet Singh i.e. father of the deceased Jagdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), alleging therein that marriage of his son, Jagdev Singh, was solemnized in the month of November, 2019 with Smt. Anita Devi, petitioner No.5 as per Sikh rites, but from day one of marriage, above named Anita Devi was not happy with the marriage. Complainant alleged that his deceased son Jagdev Singh was constantly tortured and harassed by Smt. Anita Devi on the pretext that her marriage has been forcibly solemnized and she wanted to solemnize marriage somewhere else. Complainant also alleged that repeatedly matter was brought to the notice of parents of above named Anita Devi, but in vain. He alleged that on account of constant harassment and mental torture, his deceased son had become quite and he remained under tension. He alleged that since Smt. Anita Devi used to make several telephone calls to some unknown person, deceased Jagdev Singh complained his father-in- law, who though attempted to counsel his daughter Anita Devi, but she failed to mend her ways. He alleged that on 19th May, 2020 his son had gone to the house of her in-laws for bringing his wife back, but allegedly his son was given beatings and thrown out of the house. 3 2026:HHC:25818 Complainant alleged that his deceased son was made to consume poison in a meal, as result of which, he expired. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against the accused, named in the FIR i.e. petitioners herein. 3. 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 their dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO of Police Station, Nalagarh, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, but same is silent about the compromise. 5. Complainant Sh. Manjeet Singh has expired and as such, his LRs Smt. Narender Kaur, and Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, who happen to be wife and daughter of above named deceased Manjeet Singh have come present. One LRs Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, mother of the deceased, has not been able to come present on account of her old age. 4 2026:HHC:25818 6. Smt. Narender Kaur, wife of deceased Manjeet Singh and Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, daughter of deceased Manjeet Singh, who are being represented by Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate, state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding, because at first instance, they came to know that deceased Jagdev Singh died on account of his having consumed poison allegedly given to him in a meal, but subsequently, it transpired that above named deceased died on account of inhalation of phosphine gas poisoning. They state that otherwise also, as per the compromise, wife of the deceased Jagdev Singh has handed over the custody of five years old boy of deceased to them and Smt. Anita Devi has already solemnized marriage with some third person. They state that in view of the compromise arrived interse parties, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are quashed and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record. 5 2026:HHC:25818 7. Petitioners, namely, Sh. Mohinder Singh, Smt. Onkar Devi, Sh. Mandeep Singh, Smt. Sukhvir Kaur and Sh. Pawan Kumar, who are present in Court, also state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the complainant and his family, whereby custody of five years old boy namely, Yajas Rana has been handed over to Smt. Narender Kaur with an understanding that she will raise him and Smt. Anita Devi shall have no right, save and except, visiting right. They state that after having entered into the compromise, they shall have no relation and claim of any kind with the complainant party. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record. 8. After having heard the aforesaid statements made on oath by the LRs of deceased Manjeet Singh, Sh. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into the compromise, but this Court, while considering the prayer for quashing of FIR, may not lose sight of the fact that petitioners are the accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 306 of IPC, however, he fairly states that on account of settlement made by the LRs of deceased, chances of conviction of petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak and as such, 6 2026:HHC:25818 respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 9. 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 Cr..PC 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. 10. 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, 7 2026:HHC:25818 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. 11. 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. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra 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 to compound 8 2026:HHC:25818 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 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. 13. 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. 9 2026:HHC:25818 14. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner 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 complainant party 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. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 231 of 2020, dated 23.07.2020, under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 16. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 17. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01,2026 (shankar)