2026:HHC:11606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.240 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.4.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Anurag Rathor ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for respondents No.2. SI Jagat Ram, present with records. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.175/2024, dated 17.11.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of Ms. Monika, who alleged that on 17.11.2024 at 2 2026:HHC:11606 4:35pm, while she was standing outside her house, one bullet motor cycle bearing registration No. HP17G1704 being driven by the petitioner, came in high speed from Bhooppur side and hit one minor girl namely Aradhaya, as a result thereof, she suffered multiple injuries. Since complainant, named hereinabove, alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Police lodged FIR under Sections 281 and 125(A) of BNS, against him, who was otherwise 16 years and ten days old at that time. 3. Though after completion of the investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 4. In terms of order dated 31.3.2026, respondent/State has filed status report under the signature of SHO, Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Complainant has stated to the police that since parents of the minor child, who had suffered injuries in the accident, have already decided to settle the matter with the petitioner, she otherwise being informant cannot have any objection and as such, prayer for quashing of FIR may be accepted. 3 2026:HHC:11606 5. Though complainant has not come present in person but mother of Ms. Aradhaya, who had received injuries, is present and is being represented by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. She states that she, of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused. She stated that FIR is result of mis-understanding coupled with the fact that petitioner has already apologized for his behaviour and undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future. Since petitioner has taken good care of her daughter during treatment coupled with the fact that petitioner, who is young boy having bright career ahead, she has no objection in case FIR, sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, are ordered to be quashed and set-aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted. She also admits contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct as well as her signature thereupon. 6. Having heard statement made on oath by mother of respondent No.2-injuired, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though parties had entered into compromise, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner was not authorised to drive the vehicle. He states that otherwise also, under BNS, father of the juvenile is under obligation to pay fine to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for his having permitted his minor son to drive the vehicle, however, Mr. Panwar, fairly states that on account of statement made by mother of respondent No.2, 4 2026:HHC:11606 chances of conviction of petitioner are very remote and bleak and as such, this Court may 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 CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS) 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. 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 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 5 2026:HHC:11606 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 relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. 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.PC 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 6 2026:HHC:11606 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. 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. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and mother of respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 13. In the case at hand, since petitioner is minor and he was not in possession of any valid driving licence issued by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, his father is under obligation to pay sum of 7 2026:HHC:11606 Rs.25,000/- as fine and as such, he is ordered to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine before the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Paonta Sahib, within a period of four weeks, failing which he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. 14. Since in case at hand, mother of respondent No.2 has compromised the matter with the petitioner and she is no more interested in criminal prosecution of the petitioner, ends of justice would be met in case prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR is accepted. Moreover, the offence in question does not pertain to offence of moral turpitude, rape, dacoity, etc., therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.175/2024, dated 17.11.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings, if any, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. April 10, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge