IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.205 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 8. _______________________________________________________ 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 petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No.157/2025, dated 29.12.2025, under Sections 281 and 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station Gagret, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (Annexure P-2), whereby they 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 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.4/complainant Mr. Jugal Kishore (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 29.12.2025 at about 02:40 p.m., while he was repairing the fencing of fields situated at Gagret, Daulatpur road, he heard noise of collision. He alleged that he immediately rushed to the road and found that one person namely Sarwan Kumar, who was from his village, was lying unconscious and at that time, accused, who was driving vehicle bearing registration No.PB-07CJ-5929, was also present on the spot. Since it was reported that accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the person named hereinabove, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the accused. Since deceased Sarwan Kumar could not survive the injuries sustained by him and ultimately succumbed to them, a case under Sections 281 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came to be registered against him. 3. Before challan, if any, could be filed before the competent court of law by the police, parties have entered into compromise, 3 whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise. However, complainant has come present in person along with legal representatives of the deceased and is represented by Ms. Abhilash Kaundal, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. He states that the he did not witness the accident with own his eyes and it was never reported to the Police that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, as detailed hereinabove, rather driver named Sunil Kumar, himself informed the Police and called ambulance but yet life of Sarwan Kumar could not be saved. He states that since legal representatives of the deceased Sarwan Kumar have already compromised the matter with the accused, coupled with the fact that family of the deceased has been duly compensated by the accused for the loss, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and 4 accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record. 5. Legal representatives of the deceased namely Mr. Karan Chadda, Ms. Reena Kumari, Ms. Prem Lata and Ms. Tarlochana Devi, who have come present in person, 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 they have been duly compensated by the accused, they shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their statements are taken on record. 6. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by the complainant as well as legal representatives of the deceased Sarwan Kumar, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused, one person has lost his life. However, he fairly states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statements 5 made by the complainant as well as legal representatives of the deceased Sarwan Kumar on oath, as such, this Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 7. True it is that in the case at hand, one person has lost his life after his having allegedly hit by the vehicle being driven by the accused named in the FIR, but since complainant, at whose behest FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged, has specifically denied factum with regard to his having witnessed the accident with his own eyes, coupled with the fact that family of deceased has already compromised the matter with the accused, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting criminal proceedings to continue, rather that would unnecessarily put the accused to the ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to fail. 8. 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? 6 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 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 7 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 proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because 8 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 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, complainant and legal representatives of the deceased Sarwan Kumar have already 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 9 No.157/2025, dated 29.12.2025, under Sections 281 and 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station Gagret, 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 is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. Needless to say, observations as well as findings returned in the case at hand are merely for the purpose of deciding the instant case and shall have no bearing on the case/claim petition, if any, filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Sarwan Kumar and same shall be decided strictly in terms of pleadings/evidence led on record in that case. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 30, 2026 (sunil)