IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 668 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar and Another ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, 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. Mr. Ketan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5. ASI Anil Kumar, Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.0134/2025, dated 23.08.2025, under Sections 319(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2 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 respondents No.3 to 5-Mr. Sohan Lal Sharma, Mr. Desh Raj Sharma and Mr. Vidya Sagar Sharma (hereinafter, ‘complainants’), who alleged that on 22.08.2025, while they along with other villagers were agitating peacefully qua opening of liquor vend at Galasi, proprietor of the liquor vend, namely Mr. Manoj Kumar, petitioner No.1, came on the spot along with Mr. Saurabh Sharma, petitioner No.2, claiming that officer of Excise Department has come for inspection. Complainants alleged that above named Saurabh Sharma, while claiming himself to be officer of the Excise Department, stated that in case distance between temple and liquor vend is found to be less than 100 meters, he shall get the liquor vend closed. However, while some of the journalists started making videos and recorded the above statement of Saurabh Sharma, he objected to the same by stating that it may not be in the interest of complainants as well as them because very shortly he will be inducted into IAS. Having found conduct of aforesaid Saurabh Sharma suspicious, complainants lodged complaint, on the basis of which, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against petitioners. 3. Though investigation in the case at hand is complete, but before Challan in the competent Court of law could be filed, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties. 3 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station Ghumarwin, but the same is silent about compromise, however, complainants namely Mr. Sohan Lal Sharma, Mr. Desh Raj Sharma and Mr. Vidya Sagar Sharma have come present and are being represented by Mr. Ketan Singh, Advocate. They state on oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that liquor vend, proposed to be opened by petitioner No.1, has been closed, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted and accused are acquitted of the offences. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their joint statement made on oath is taken on record. 5. Having heard statement made on oath by complainants, 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 complainants. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners-accused are 4 very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties. 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 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. 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 5 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 statutes 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 6 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 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. 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. 7 12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondents No.3 to 5, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, are 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. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.0134/2025, dated 23.08.2025, under Sections 319(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, 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. July 07, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge