IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.137 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jatin Saini & 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. Ritesh Dabas, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1- State. Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HC Rajeev No.323, WPS Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, present in person. _______________________________________________________ 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 (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No.0002 of 2022, dated 26.02.2022, under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication before 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-3 colly), 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.2 (in short “complainant”), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 10.12.2025 as per Hindu rites and customs. She alleged that though at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient money and ornaments by way of dowry, but yet she was constantly maltreated and harassed by accused No.1 and her in- laws i.e. accused No.2 & 3 for bringing less dowry. She alleged that she was repeatedly maltreated and given beatings by the accused for bringing less dowry. On account of matrimonial discord, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house in the year 2021 and since then, she had been leaving with her parents. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted against the accused. 3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, 3 complainant and accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably intere se them. As per compromise, accused No.1 and the complainant have already filed petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent in the competent Court of law. Statement of first motion has already been recorded and now, matter has been listed on 11.5.2026 for recording the statement of second motion. In the afore background, 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, respondent-State has filed status report issued under the signatures of SHO Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise. However, complainant has come present in person and is represented by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her 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. She states that the since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and she along with accused No.1 has already approached competent 4 Court of law for divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby they have resolved to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent, coupled with the fact that accused have already apologized for their behaviour and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, she 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 accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. She states that till the time amount otherwise agreed to be paid in terms of compromise is not paid to her, Family Court, Nahan, may be directed not to pass decree of dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent. She states that as per compromise, she has already received sum of Rs.40,000/- and remaining sum of Rs.60,000/- agreed to be paid on or before recording the statement of second motion. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Accused No.1, who has also come present in person before this Court, states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the complainant, whereby both the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. He states that as per agreed terms, he has already paid sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and 5 remaining sum of Rs.60,000/- shall be paid on or before recording the statement of second motion. He states that till the time remaining sum is not paid, he shall not press for decree of dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consequent. While admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record. 6. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by the complainant and accused No.1, 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 statement made by the complainant 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 6 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 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 7 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. 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 8 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. 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 and complainant have compromised the matter 9 interse 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.0002 of 2022, dated 26.02.2022, under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, 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. 14. It is clarified that in case remaining sum of Rs.60,000/- agreed to be paid by accused No.1 is not paid on or before recording the statement of second motion, Family Court, Nahan, shall not proceed to pass decree of dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent and in that event, FIR otherwise sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings shall automatically revive. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 30, 2026 (sunil)