2026:HHC:35046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.881 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ Lucky Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 121 of 2025, dated 14.06.2025, under Sections 118(1), 118(2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:35046 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, Mohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 14.06.2025, at about 11.00 AM, when he was present at his home alongwith his wife his nephew Priyansh, came in his room and alleged that his father (petitioner herein) had attacked his wife with a drat (sickle). Complainant alleged that immediately he alongwith his wife rushed to the house of his brother and found that his sister-in-law Ranjna Kumari (respondent No. 2) was bleeding on account of an injury inflicted on her shoulder by the petitioner. He alleged that immediately he alongwith his wife took Ranjna Kumar to the Civil Hospital, Nurpur, where police arrived and recorded his statement. 3. Though, after completion of the 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 interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, 3 2026:HHC:35046 Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith aforesaid status report, copy of compromise as well as statements made by the complainant as well as injured Ranjna Kumar, have also been placed on record, whereby they have fairly acknowledged factum of compromise arrived interse parties. 5. Besides above, Respondent/ complainant, Sh. Mohan Lal and respondent No.3/injured Smt. Ranjna Kumar have also come present and are being represented by Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. They state that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that accused, named in the FIR, has already apologized for his misbehaviour and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future. Injured Ranjana Kumar has fully recovered from the injuries sustained by her in the alleged incident, coupled with the fact that petitioner-accused is the sole breadwinner of the family, which comprises his wife and two minor children, and continuous incarceration or further prosecution would cause grave prejudice to the entire family. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also 4 2026:HHC:35046 admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record. 6. After having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent No. 2/ complainant as well as injured, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that though parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner has been charged under Section 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for his having made deadly attack on the injured. Learned Additional Advocate General states that as per the medical opinion rendered on record, respondent- injured suffered grievous injury on her shoulder, which could be dangerous to his life and as such, this Court may not accept the compromise, because it may give wrong signal to the society. 7. 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 Cr..PC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., since 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), 5 2026:HHC:35046 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 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 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 6 2026:HHC:35046 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. 10. 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( 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 7 2026:HHC:35046 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. 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, this Court finds that Doctor after having examined the respondent-injured opined the injuries to be grievous in nature. Most importantly, respondent-injured, who has come present before this Court, fairly states that she has already recovered from the injuries suffered by her on his shoulder. No doubt, as per aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh case (supra), compromise, if any, made in case involving Section 307 of IPC(now Section 109 of BNS) is not to be accepted in routine manner, but in case Court after having examined MLC is convinced that injury suffered by the injured is grievous but not dangerous to life, can proceed to compound the offence, especially with a view to bring harmony interse parties. In the case at hand, both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse 8 2026:HHC:35046 them and in case prayer made on their behalf for quashing of FIR is not accepted, pendency of the proceedings may further widen the rift interse parties, which is otherwise not in the interest of the parties. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 121 of 2025, dated 14.06.2025, under Sections 118(1), 118(2) and 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 15. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 19, 2026 (shankar)