2026:HHC:27613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 717 of 2026 Date of Decision: 8.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Anirudh Singh 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. Virender Thakur and Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ASI Dulo Ram present with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. 81/2018, dated 10.5.2018, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2026:HHC:27613 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 on 10.5.2018, on 11:00pm, delegates of Block Congress Committee were afforded an opportunity of hearing qua their grievances in the absence of Regional Manager HRTC, who at the relevant time, was out of station on account of Dhabha inspection tour. He alleged that though he after having heard grievances of the afore delegates, assured that routes listed by the committee have been restored with immediate effect, however they kept on shouting slogans and also obstructed the traffic. He alleged that subsequently, on the directions issued by Executive Director HRTC Shimla, Chief General Manager, HRTC came on the spot and assured the representatives of the afore Committee that routes listed by the Committee have been restored and with immediate effect, buses would be plied upon the same. Since it came to be specifically alleged in the FIR sought to be quashed that on account of agitation of members of the Congress Committee, traffic was obstructed on the road, FIR came to be lodged against the persons named therein. 3. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its 2026:HHC:27613 3 logical end, parties entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 4. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS Dhalli, which is silent about the compromise. Respondent No. 2, who is present in the court and is represented by Mr.Hitesh Kumar, Advocate, states on oath that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. He states that FIR is a result of mis-understanding because subsequently issue was resolved on the spot and as such, he shall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners- accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signature thereupon. 5. Having heard statements made on oath by respondent No.2, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that no 2026:HHC:27613 4 fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well as 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 complainant, as such, this court can pass appropriate orders. 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. 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 2026:HHC:27613 5 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 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. 2026:HHC:27613 6 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 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 2026:HHC:27613 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. 11. 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, 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 the complainants have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2, 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. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 81/2018, dated 2026:HHC:27613 8 10.5.2018, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC, is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. July 8, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge