IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.762 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sushil Kumar @ Sainta ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, 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. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ASI Balwinder Singh, PS Nurpur, District Kangra, 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 petitioner-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No. 215 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 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 2 lodged at the behest of respondent No.4-Sh. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Sharma (in short ‘complainant’), who alleged that 10.07.2022 at about 09:45 p.m., while he was standing outside the gate of the house of Sunil Sharma, accused namely Sushil Kumar, who was under the influence of liquor, attacked him with sharp edged weapon, as a result thereof, he suffered injury on his head. He alleged that had he not raised an alarm to save himself, accused named in the FIR would have killed him. In afore background, FIR came to be lodged against the accused. 3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 4. 4. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report issued under the signatures of SHO PS Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. 5. Complainant Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Sharma, who had come present before this Court, categorically stated on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the accused, whereby they have decided to settle the 3 dispute amicably inter se them. He stated that since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that accused has already apologized for his behaviour and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he does 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 is acquitted of the offences. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admitted his signatures thereupon. His statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. After having perused aforesaid statement made on oath by the complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that though parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that accused has been charged under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code for his having made deadly attack on the complainant. He states that as per the medical opinion rendered on record, complainant suffered grievous injury on his heard, which could be dangerous to his life and as such, this Court may not accept the compromise, because it may send wrong message to the society. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 7. The question, which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in 4 Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Code”) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 8. 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 above, clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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. 9. 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 5 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. 10. 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 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. 6 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 are of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 11. 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. 12. No doubt, as per aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), compromise, if any, made in cases involving Section 307 of IPC, is not to be accepted in routine manner, but in case this Court after having examined MLC is convinced that injuries suffered by the complainant are grievous, but not dangerous to life, can proceed to compound the offence, especially with a view to bring harmony inter se parties. In the case at hand, both the parties are related to each other and now with the intervention of respectable members of the society, they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them and in case, prayer made on his behalf for quashing of FIR is not accepted, pendency of 7 the proceedings may further widen the rift inter se parties, which situation is otherwise not in the interest of the parties. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 215 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. July 27, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge