2026:HHC:35441 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.886 of 2026 with Cr.MMO No.892 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MMO No.886 of 2026 Pradeep Thakur & others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MMO No.892 of 2026 Yashwant Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in Cr.MMO No.886 of 2026. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners in Cr.MMO No.892 of 2026. 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, in both the petitions. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 10 in Cr.MMO No.886 of 2026. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:35441 Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 7 in Cr.MMO No.892 of 2026. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners, in both the cases, for quashing of FIR No.70 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022, under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 354 and 506 of IPC and FIR No.71 of 2022, dated 25.06.2022, under Sections 447, 147, 149 and 323 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Kala Amb, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, 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. 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 bearing No. 70 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 4, Shri Yashwant Singh(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 24.06.2022, at about 12:30 PM, persons, namely Pradeep Kumar, Jagdish, Satyender, Chint Ram, Surender, Nihal, Vishal, Ankush, Gagan, Ravi, Rishu, Rama, and Poonam unauthorizedly came in a tractor and caused damage to the passage leading to his house. He alleged that they also caused damage to his 3 2026:HHC:35441 fields, and when he objected, aforesaid persons not only misbehaved with him, but also attempted to give beatings to his sister-in-law Smt. Suman, nephews Rahul, Himanshu, son Shubham, and one Pawan. He further alleged that persons, namely Pradeep, Chint Ram, Nihal, Satyender and Surender attempted to outrage the modesty of his sister-in-law Smt. Suman. Taking note of aforesaid allegations levelled in the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, police registered the case against the accused, named in the FIR, under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 354, and 506 of IPC. 3. On the other hand, accused, named in the aforesaid FIR, lodged a cross-FIR No. 71 of 2022, alleging therein that on 24.06.2022, at about 12:30 PM, Yashwant Singh and his family unauthorizedly entered on his land and attacked him with a stick. He also alleged that the children of Yashwant Singh, besides giving beatings to his brother Ankush, also attempted to outrage the modesty of his mother and aunt. In the aforesaid background, FIR came to be lodged against the accused named in the aforesaid FIR under Sections 447, 147, 149, and 323 of the IPC. 4. Though after completion of the investigation, police has already presented challan in both the FIRs in the competent Court of law, but before the same could be taken to their logical end, the parties have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. In the aforesaid 4 2026:HHC:35441 background, accused named in both the FIRs, who are otherwise closely related to each other, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIRs. 5. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report in both the FIRs, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith the aforesaid status reports, police has also placed on record statements made by the complainants in both cases, whereby they have decided not to pursue their cases. 6. Complainants as well as accused named in both the FIRs have also come present. Complainants, namely Yashwant and Nihal Thakur, who are being represented by their respective counsel, state on oath before this Court that they, of their own volition and without there being any external pressure, have entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that FIRs, sought to be quashed, are result of misunderstanding and since they have now settled their land dispute, they do not wish to prosecute the cases further. They state that since both the parties are closely related to each other and have been living in nearby vicinity for years together, they, with a view to maintain cordial relations, have decided to resolve their dispute by way of settlement and, as such they shall have no objection in case the FIRs lodged at their behest against the accused named therein 5 2026:HHC:35441 are quashed and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their statements are taken on record. 7. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statements made by the respondents /complainants, in both the cases, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIRs as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by the respondents/ complainants in both the cases and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in both the petitions are allowed. 8. 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. 6 2026:HHC:35441 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 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 7 2026:HHC:35441 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. 11. 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 8 2026:HHC:35441 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 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 petitioners 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 FIRs as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and respondents/complainants in both the cases have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 70 of 9 2026:HHC:35441 2022, dated 24.06.2022, under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 354 and 506 of IPC and FIR No.71 of 2022, dated 25.06.2022, under Sections 447, 147, 149 and 323 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Kala Amb, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioners-accused, in both the cases, are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 15. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 16. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 20, 2026 (shankar)