IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 426 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Miss Pooja and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal and Mr. M.C. Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Dalip Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners- accused for quashing of FIR No. 45/2020, dated 14.6.2020, registered at Police Station Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC 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 record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-complainant, who alleged that on 13.6.2020 at 8.00pm, his elder brother Ramesh Kumar and his wife Daya, along with two children namely Rohit and Pooja came out of his house and attempted to give him beatings with stick and sickle, as a result thereof, he as well as his wife Jamuna Sharma suffered serious injuries. He also alleged that when his brother Rajesh came in between to settle the matter, he was also attacked with sharp edged weapon by the accused named in the FIR 3. Though after completion of investigation, police has already presented challan in 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. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 4. Respondent-State has filed reply as well as status report under the signature of SHO, Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, perusal whereof reveals that parties had filed cross FIRs; one FIR was registered by 3 the Suresh Kumar, who is complainant in the case at hand, another FIR No. 44 of 2020 lodged by Miss Pooja, has been already quashed by this Court. Though factum of compromise has not been acknowledged in the status report, but police has placed on record statement of the complainant Suresh Kumar, wherein he has stated that though he is not averse to the compromise, but since he is not being permitted to repair the kuhl/water body, which passes adjacent to his house, damage is being caused to his property. He states that as and when aforesaid Kuhl is repaired by the Gram Panchayat and no objection qua the same is raised by the accused named in the FIR, he shall have no objection in quashing of FIR sought to be quashed in instant proceedings. 5. Respondent No.2-Suresh Kumar, who is also present in the Court and duly represented by Mr. Dalip Kumar, Advocate, states on oath that he, of his own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that though he has no objection in case FIR sought to be quashed is quashed and accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them, but this Court may direct the Gam Panchayat concerned as well as accused to ensure repair of water body/Kuhal, adjacent to his house. His statement is taken on record. 4 6. Petitioners, who are also present in Court, also state on oath that they, of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the respondent-complainant whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. They state that they don't have any kind of objection in repair of the kuhl/water body adjacent to the house of the respondent-complainant, but in the garb of repair of the kuhl/water body, he intends to grab their land, which is also adjacent to the house of the complainant. They state that in case, no encroachment is made upon their land by the respondent/complainant while making repair of kuhl/water body, they shall have no objection qua the repair work to be done by the Gram Panchayat. Their statements are taken on record. 7. Having heard statements made on oath by both the parties, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in view of the amicable settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed is permitted to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift between the parties. He further states that Gram Panchayat concerned would ensure that kuhl/water body passing adjacent to the house of petitioner, is repaired at the earliest, but 5 in that regard, direction may be given to both the parties to ensure cooperation. 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 Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) 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 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 6 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. 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 7 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 8 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 the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the complainants have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 14. 14. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2, 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 petitioners, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer of the petitioners 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. 45/2020, dated 14.6.2020, registered at Police Station Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with 9 Section 34 of IPC along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 16. Before parting, this Court, with a view to do complete and substantial justice, deems it fit to direct Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to ensure that kuhl/water body passing adjacent to the house of the respondent-Suresh Kumar is repaired expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, but while doing so, it may be ensured that no damage is caused to the land of the petitioners, which is also situated adjacent to the land of respondent. Petitioners as well as respondent are also directed to render full cooperation to the Gram Panchayat for doing the needful in terms of directions contained in the instant order, failing which they would render themselves liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court 17. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. August 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge