2026:HHC:30998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.736 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.7.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Dinesh 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. Ashok Chaudhary 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. Sameer Miyan, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.158 of 2019, dated 28.12.2019, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Fatehpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, 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.2 (in short, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 28.1.2019 at about 2:00pm, while was present in his shop, one scooty bearing registration No. HP882507 which was being driven by respondent No.3, attempted to take turn towards Fatehpur, but in the meantime, one scooty bearing registration No.HP883942 being driven by the petitioner hit him, as a result of which, both the scooty drivers fell on the ground and suffered injuries. Since it came to be alleged in the complaint that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against him. 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, petitioner 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 order dated 14.7.2026, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS Fatehpur, wherein factum of compromise inter-se parties stands duly acknowledged. Along with afore status report, police authorities besides placing on record factum of 3 compromise also placed on record statements of the complainant and the injured i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3. 5. Respondent No.3 Sh. Rakshpal Singh, who is duly represented by Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocate, stated on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has come before this Court to make statement. He stated that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment coupled with the fact that while he was under treatment, petitioner took great care of him, he does not want to prosecute the criminal proceedings further and shall have no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, respondent No.3 admits his signature on the same. Aforesaid statement is taken on record. 6. Complainant Ravinder Kumar has not been able to come present for the reason that a day before yesterday, he has suffered a heart attack. Since respondent State has already placed on record statement made by the complainant before the police coupled with the fact that he was merely an informant, this court sees no reason to wait for recording his statement again, rather on the basis of his statement given to the police as well as statement made by respondent No.3 Rakshpal Singh before this Court, deems it fit to consider the prayer of the petitioner. 4 7. Having heard and perused statements made by respondents No. 2 & 3, 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 petitioner and complainant. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, however, he states that this Court may take note of the fact that at the time of alleged accident, accused was under the influence of liquor. 8. 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. 9. 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 5 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 Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences. 10. 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. 6 11. 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. 12. 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 7 principles/parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 13. 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 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. 14. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondents No. 2 & 3 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. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.158 of 2019, dated 28.12.2019, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Fatehpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 8 16. Since petitioner-accused, was driving the vehicle without licence, he is directed to pay fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- within a period of four weeks, which shall be deposited in the concerned Treasury at Jawali, failing which he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. 17. List for compliance on 2.9.2026. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. July 28, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge