IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.779 and 780 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MMO No.779 of 2026 Manni Chand & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MMO No.780 of 2026 Om Prkash …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MMO No.779 of 2026. Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MMO No.780 of 2026. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State, in both the petitions. Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.4, in Cr.MMO No.779 of 2026. Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ASI Narjeev Kumar, PS Karsog, District Mandi, HP, present in person along with record. _______________________________________________________ 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of above-captioned petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, payer has been made on behalf of the petitioners-accused (in short “accused”) in both the cases for quashing of FIR No.28 of 2022, dated 18.03.2022, under Sections 341, 323, 506 & 34 of IPC, and FIR No.29 of 2022, dated 18.03.2022, under Sections 341, 324 & 307 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law on the basis of compromise, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material produced on record by respective parties, are that FIR No. 28 of 2022 came to be instituted at the behest of respondent No.4, Sh. Om Prakash, in Cr.MMO No. 779 of 2026 and accused in Cr.MMO No. 780 of 2026, alleging therein that on 18.03.2022 at 6:50 PM, while he was coming from Khandar Gali to his house at Kelodhar, persons namely Manni Chand, Roshan Lal, had blocked the road by parking their vehicles bearing No. HP-01M-0933 and HP-30-5553 in the middle of the road. He alleged that when he asked those persons to move their vehicles, they not only hurled abuses, but along with the other persons named in the FIR, gave him merciless beatings and as such, appropriate action in 3 accordance with law be taken against them. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR, as detailed herein above under Section 341, 323, 342, 325, 506 IPC against accused namely Manni Chand, Roshan Lal, Padam Singh, Mohar Singh, Ramesh Kumar, and Khushi Ram. 3. FIR No. 29/2022 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 4, Mohar Singh in Cr.MMO No. 780/2026 and accused No. 4 in Cr.MMO No. 779/2026, alleging therein that on 18.03.2022 at 6:35 PM, while he was present in his house, he received a telephonic call from accused No.2, Roshan Lal that person namely Om Prakash was quarreling with him, and as such, he should come on the spot. He alleged that when he reached Community Centre, Kelodhar, persons namely Roshan Lal and Om Prakash were arguing with each other, but after having seen him, Om Prakash went inside his house and brought one drat (sickle) to kill Roshan Lal. He alleged that when he attempted to prevent Om Prakash from giving blow of drat upon Roshan, he picked up fight with him, and gave him blow of drat on his head, as a result of thereof, he suffered injury on his head. 4. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the accused in both the cases, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant and accused named in both the FIRs have 4 entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. In afore background, accused named in both the FIRs approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIRs as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law. 5. Pursuant to notices issued in both the cases, respondent- State has filed status report, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. However, complainants in both the cases have come present in person and are represented by their respective counsel. They state on oath that they of their own volition and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. They state that since FIRs sought to be quashed are result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that both the parties have already apologized for their behaviour and undertaken not to repeat such act in future, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIRs through above-captioned petitions are accepted and accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their statements are taken on record. 5 6. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by the complainants in both the cases, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statements made by the complainants in both the cases on oath, as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Code”) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., as 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 6 accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment, referred above, clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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 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 7 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 depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences are of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 8 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 cases at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the accused 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 the accused and complainant have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.28 of 2022, dated 18.03.2022, under Sections 341, 323, 506 & 34 of IPC, and FIR No.29 of 2022, dated 18.03.2022, under Sections 341, 324 & 307 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and 9 set aside qua petitioners. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 06, 2026 (sunil)