IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.201 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No.19 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024 under Sections 376-D, 354, 342 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant (name withheld to protect her identity) (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant/ victim-prosecutrix’), who alleged that while she was residing with her sister at Bharatgarh, petitioner No. 1, Mr. Parveen Kumar, who was working at TVS Company, Nalagarh, came into contact with her and was also accommodated on the first floor of her sister’s house. She alleged that above named Parveen Kumar on the pretext of marriage repeatedly sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She stated that on two-three occasions, she became pregnant, but petitioner No. 1 compelled her to terminate the pregnancies. She alleged that on 16.06.2024, she had gone to the house of petitioner No.1 for solemnizing marriage, but petitioner No.1 refused to marry her and his uncle Satpal and brother- in-laws Suresh and Puran forcibly confined her in a room and attempted to sexually assault her, however, she managed to escape. In the afore background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the petitioners-accused. 3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the 3 petitioners-accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant/ victim-prosecutrix and petitioners-accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably intere se them. Petitioner No.1 and complainant/ victim-prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock, one child has born, as such, petitioners-accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, though respondent-State was granted time to file status report but neither status report has been filed nor factum of compromise has been verified. 5. Complainant/ victim-prosecutrix, has come present in person and is represented by Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. She states that the since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that she has already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1-accused and out of their wedlock, one child has born, she does not wish to prosecute the case 4 further and shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 6. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by the complainant/ victim-prosecutrix, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but having taken note of the fact that petitioner No.1-accused is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 376-D of Indian Penal Code, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners- accused deserves to be rejected. However, he fairly states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant on oath. 7. True it is that petitioners-accused are accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 376, 354, 342 and 34 Indian Penal Code, but once complainant/ victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their wedlock, one child has born, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR, sought to be quashed, is permitted to continue, rather continuation of the same would further harm the complainant/ victim-prosecutrix, who 5 otherwise has stated before this Court that she is living happy married life with her husband. 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 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. 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 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 6 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. 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 7 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. 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 8 Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 13. Since, in the case at hand, complainant/ victim- prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and she is living happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to sustain may disturb the happy married life of petitioner No.1 and the complainant/ victim-prosecutrix. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of complainant/ victim- prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioners/accused are left to be prosecuted for their having committed the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 342 and 34 Indian Penal Code, ultimate loser would be complainant/ victim- prosecutrix, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of petitioners-accused, as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR. 9 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.19 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024 under Sections 376-D, 354, 342 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 24, 2026 (sunil)