IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 862 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Balvinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, 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. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. ASI Jaswinder Singh, Police Station Nalagarh, present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.294 of 2024, dated 12.10.2024, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 66(C), 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2 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-Mr. Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that person namely Balvinder Singh, resident of village Jagli, petitioner herein, has been sending objectionable videos of his wife on his mobile phone. He further alleged that the above-named accused was threatening to make the video viral on the internet and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner. 3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented the Challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 4. Respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi, District Solan, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Along with aforesaid status report, statement of the complainant has also been placed on record 3 wherein he has expressed his desire to get the FIR quashed on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties. 5. Complainant along with his wife is present in Court and is being represented by Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate. Both complainant and his wife state on oath that they, of their own volition and without there being any external pressure, have entered into compromise with the petitioner- accused whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of a misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that accused named in the FIR has already apologized for his misconduct and has undertaken not to repeat such acts in future and as such, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequential proceedings are quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit there signatures on the same. Their joint statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. Having heard statement made on oath by complainant as well as his wife, 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 4 very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties. 7. 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. 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 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 5 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 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 statutes 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. 10. 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 6 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 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. 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. 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. 7 13. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and complainant, 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 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. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.294 of 2024, dated 12.10.2024, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 66(C), 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with consequential proceedings is 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. August 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge