IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.286 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 _______________________________________________________ Dalip …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Ms. Shabnam, Advocate, for respondent No.4 & 5. SI Achhar Singh, Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No.5 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that in the month of May, 2025, when his daughter i.e. victim-prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity), was studying in 10th Class, accused, namely Dalip, made her to elope with him and thereafter, they both solemnized marriage. He alleged that since above named Dalip had extended threats to him, he did not lodge FIR at the relevant time. He further alleged that his minor daughter had left him on account of his poverty and he was unable to report the matter to the police well within time, as such, action in accordance with law be taken against the accused. In the afore background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the accused. 3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the 3 accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, as such, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh and SI Achhar Singh has come present along with record. Status report/record of the respondent-State is silent about the compromise. 5. On the other hand, complainant has come present in person and is represented by Ms. Shabnam, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. He states that the since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that his daughter has already solemnized marriage with the accused and out of their wedlock, one child has been born, as such, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and accused is acquitted of 4 charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record. 6. Besides above, victim-prosecutrix is also present in person before this Court and has been identified by SI Achhar Singh. She states that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. She states that the since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that she has already solemnized marriage with the accused in the year 2025 and out of their wedlock, one child has been born, as such, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 7. After having heard aforesaid statements made by the complainant and the victim-prosecutrix, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but having taken note of the fact that accused is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 5 prayer made on behalf of the accused deserves to be rejected. However, he fairly states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant as well as victim-prosecutrix. 8. True it is that accused is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, but once victim- prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner and out of their wedlock, one child has been born, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR, sought to be quashed, is permitted to continue, rather continuation of the same would further harm the victim-prosecutrix, who otherwise has stated before this Court that she is living happy married life with her husband. 9. 9. 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 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society? 6 10. 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 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. 11. 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 7 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. 12. 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. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 8 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. 13. 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. 14. Since, in the case at hand, victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner and she is living happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to sustain may disturb the happy married life of petitioner and the victim-prosecutrix. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind, rather than the interest of an individual, however, in the facts and 9 circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of victim- prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and accused is left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, ultimate loser would be victim-prosecutrix, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. No doubt, this Court is fully conscious of the fact that offences under POCSO Act are not of a private nature and cannot be quashed in terms of compromise, but if the allegations are serious, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases. Since in the instant case, one child has been born out of the wedlock inter se victim-prosecutrix and the petitioner, coupled with the fact that there is a dispute with regard to age of the victim-prosecutrix, interest of victim-prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance. Though by way of placing Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority, prosecution attempted to prove that victim-prosecutrix is minor, but during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused made available certain documents/certificate issued by the Anganwari Centre Jtadi, perusal whereof reveals that victim-prosecutrix is 19 years old. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused, as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by accused for quashing of FIR. 10 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.5 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., 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. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 09, 2026 (sunil)