2026:HHC:32394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.752 of 2026 with Cr.MMO No.760 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MMO No.752 of 2026 Ajay Sahota & others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MMO No.760 of 2026 Ashwani Kumar @ Raman & others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for the petitioners in Cr.MMO No.752 of 2026 and Mr. Rahul Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners in Cr.MMO No.760 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. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Cr.MMO No.760 of 2026 and Mr. Rahul Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2, in Cr.MMO No.752 of 2026. HC Mehar Chand, present alongwith the record. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:32394 on behalf of petitioners, in both the cases, for quashing of FIR No. 130 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 34 of IPC and FIR No. 131 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 and 504 of IPC, registered at Police Station Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, 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 No.130 of 2019 came to be instituted at the behest of Sukhwinder Singh (complainant/respondent No. 2 in Cr.MMO No. 752 of 2026 and petitioner No.3 in Cr.MMO No. 760 of 2026), alleging therein that on 05.06.2019, at about 10:00 PM, while he along with his neighbour Rajneesh Singh was sitting at his home, person, namely Bhupinder Singh alongwith another boy started making noises outside his house and when he objected to the same, both the aforesaid persons hurled abuses and extended threats. He alleged that on the next day, when he made complaint to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chettran, he called Bhupinder Singh and others, who in front of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, attempted to hit him with Kirpan(knife), but Kirpan was snatched by the Pradhan. He alleged that while he alongwith Rajneesh Singh was coming back from the 3 2026:HHC:32394 house of Pradhan to their house, accused, named in FIR, attacked them and gave them beatings. 3. One of the accused, named in the aforesaid FIR, namely Ajay Sahota (Petitioner No. 1 in Cr.MMO No. 752 of 2026 and respondent No. 2 in Cr.MMO No. 760 of 2026), alleged that on 05.06.2019, at about 09:30 PM, persons, namely Laddi, Lakhwinder, Garmish and Rishabh asked him to call his friend Bhupinder Singh alias Laddi. He alleged that aforesaid persons hurled abuses at him and he went away to his house. However, on 06.06.2019, at 10:00 AM, when he alongwith his friend Bhupinder alias Laddi, Vikram Singh, Prem Chand, Usha Devi, Sarika Devi, Balbir Chand, Santosh and Rajan Kumar had gone to Panchayat Ghar after being called by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, accused, named in the FIR, gave them beatings and also hurled abuses. 4. Though, after completion of investigation, in both the FIRs, police has already presented challans in competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to their logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, accused named in both the FIRs, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIRs as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 4 2026:HHC:32394 5. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, respondent-State, in both the case, has filed status reports under the signature of SHO, Police Station, Haroli, District Una, but same are silent about compromise. 6. Persons, namely Sukhwinder Singh and Ajay Sahota (complainants), at whose instance FIRs, sought to be quashed, came to be instituted, have come present in Court and are being represented by Mr. Rahul Mehta and Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocates. They state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the accused named in the FIRs, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIRs, sought to be quashed, are result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that accused, named in the FIRs, have already apologized for their misbehavior and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such acts in future and as such, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIRs as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are quashed and accused, named in both the FIRs, are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record. 5 2026:HHC:32394 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. 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 6 2026:HHC:32394 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 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 2026:HHC:32394 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 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. 8 2026:HHC:32394 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. 130 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 34 of IPC and FIR No. 131 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 and 504 of IPC, registered at Police Station Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are 9 2026:HHC:32394 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 04,2026 (shankar)