2026:HHC:33768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 833 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Naresh Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Kunal Thakur, 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. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HC Jaivanti, No.81, Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, 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.137 of 2018, dated 12.05.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2026:HHC:33768 2 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 lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-ABC daughter of XYZ, aged 37 years, (name withheld to protect the identity) (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), alleging therein that in the month of April, 2012, she came in contact with accused and since then, they had been talking and meeting with each other. She alleged that after one month of their first meeting, accused started alluring her while making promises to solemnize marriage. She alleged that though since April 2012, accused repeatedly sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage and on two occasions, she also became pregnant, but now accused is refusing to solemnize marriage. In the afore background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the accused. 3. Before FIR, sought to be quashed, could be taken to its logical ends, 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-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. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about compromise. However, complainant/victim prosecutrix has come present 2026:HHC:33768 3 and is being represented by Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused, whereby both the parties have solemnized marriage and they are living happy married life. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, because at the time of lodging of FIR, certain differences had come inter se her and petitioner-accused, but thereafter, they have solemnised marriage and out of their wedlock one girl child has born. She states that since petitioner-accused is taking good care of her as well as her daughter and they are living together at Solan, she 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 alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement made on oath is taken on record. 5. Having heard the aforesaid statement made by victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, but since victim/prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with present petitioner and she does not want to prosecute the case further, no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against petitioner. Mr. Panwar states that on account of pendency of criminal case, initiated at the behest of respondent No.2, marriage of victim/prosecutrix may be ruined 2026:HHC:33768 4 and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by respondent No.2 and as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. 6. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s 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. 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 2026:HHC:33768 5 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. 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 case 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 2026:HHC:33768 6 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. 11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. 2026:HHC:33768 7 12. Though offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner falls in the category of heinous crime as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Judgment (supra) and as such, this Court should be reluctant in exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of FIR, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, where victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with present petitioner and she is living happy married life with him, this Court in the interest of the victim- prosecutrix, deems it fit to exercise power under Section 528 of BNSS for accepting the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR. In case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused is not accepted at this stage, great prejudice would be caused to the victim-prosecutrix, who has not only solemnized marriage with present petitioner, but is also living happy married life, as has been stated by the victim-prosecutrix in her statement recorded before this Court. In case, petitioner-accused is made to face the trial, in terms of FIR sought to be quashed, it is victim-prosecutrix, who would be the ultimate sufferer. No doubt, while exercising power under Section 528 BNSS, for quashing of FIR, this Court is also required to take into consideration interest of the society at large, but in the present case, interest of respondent No.2-victim-prosecutrix appears to be more important than that of the society and as such, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS, deems it fit to quash the FIR lodged against the petitioner under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Moreover, chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote 2026:HHC:33768 8 and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.2-victim- prosecutrix and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are allowed to sustain. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.137 of 2018, dated 12.05.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 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 11, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge