IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 744 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vipan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Panku Choudhary, Advocate. 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. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 154/2022 dated 25.12.2022, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4 (hereinafter, 2 ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 25.12.2022 at 7:15 AM, while she was going to village Kachhiari driving car bearing No. HP-40E-2999 (creta) and had reached near petrol pump, one tractor being driven by accused Vipan Kumar, came from the opposite side and hit her car, as a result of which, she suffered serious injuries and the car was also damaged. Since complainant alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused, FIR was lodged against him. 3. Though after completion of investigation, police has already presented challan before the competent Court of Law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has 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 order passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed the status report under the signature of SHO, Police Station Kangra, but same is silent about the compromise. Complainant has also come present in person and is represented by Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate. Respondent No.4 Smt. Rubi Sumbariya, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into 3 compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. She states that FIR is result of misunderstanding because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, but on account of error of judgment coupled with the fact that petitioner has adequately compensated her qua the damage caused to her vehicle, as such, she shall have no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures on the same. Aforesaid statement is taken on record. 5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.4, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by respondent No.4, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted. 4 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 of 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 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 5 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. 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 6 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 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. 7 11. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.4, 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 petitioner, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner 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 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 petitioner and respondent No.4 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. 154/2022 dated 25.12.2022, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges 8 framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. July 21, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge