2026:HHC:8815 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.441 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Surinder Minhas …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel and Mr. Janak Raj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. Mr. Ishneet Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2025, dated 21.01.2025, under Sections 340(2), 356(3), 353(2), 49 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Section 66(A) of Information and Technology Act, registered at police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, 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. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:8815 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.5, Sh. Gurmeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 18.01.2025, when Hon’ble Chief Minister was on tour of Nagrota-Surian and Jawali and proceedings towards Jawali, he was present near Jarpal Dhaba. Complainant alleged that while the cavalcade of Hon’ble Chief Minster was passing through the said road, he gave signal to stop, whereupon Hon’ble Chief Minister graciously halted his vehicle and heard his grievance. Complainant alleged that at the time of handing over a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, a person present at the spot recorded the video of the incident. He alleged that once Hon’ble Chief Minister after having heard his grievance left towards Jawali, petitioner herein, who is owner/proprietor of City News Digital Channel asked for video. He alleged that on 21.01.2025, while he was present near his Dhaba, he saw one news on social media circulated by City News Digital Channel, wherein video made available by him with regard to his meeting with Hon’ble Chief Minister was tampered/manipulated and attempt was made by proprietor of aforesaid news channel to scandalize his meeting with Hon’ble Chief Minister. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has 3 2026:HHC:8815 presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they resolved to settle the dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings. 3. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, police Station, Jawali, wherein factum of compromise has been not acknowledged. 4. Respondent/complainant has come present in person and is being represented by Mr. Ishneet Rattan, Advocate. He states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding. He states that after lodging of FIR, he came to know that City News Digital Channel is not owned by the petitioner, rather some other person. He states that since petitioner herein had not tampered/manipulated with his video, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed 4 2026:HHC:8815 against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature upon the same. His statement is taken on record. 5. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by the complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into the compromise, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner has committed serious crime having an adverse impact on the society. He states that on account of false propaganda serious damage has been caused to the government and as such, petitioner is required to be dealt with in accordance with law. He states that offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is not only serious, but against the society. 6. True it is that petitioner is accused of serious crime having adverse impact on the society, but once complainant has stated on oath before this Court that subsequent to lodging of the FIR, he came to know that video made available by him to the petitioner was not tampered with or manipulated by the petitioner, rather some other channel had circulated fake news, he does not wish to prosecute the case further on account of amicable settlement arrived interse parties, this Court sees no reason to reject the prayer made on behalf of the quashing of FIR, especially when it is satisfied that amicable settlement arrived interse parties would 5 2026:HHC:8815 ultimately promote peace and harmony between the petitioner as well as the complainant. 7. 7. 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 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., since 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 ( now section 528 of BNSS) 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( now section 528 of BNSS), 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 6 2026:HHC:8815 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 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 7 2026:HHC:8815 that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C ( now section 528 of BNSS) 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. 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 petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, 8 2026:HHC:8815 this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and respondent/complainant 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. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 14 of 2025, dated 21.01.2025, under Sections 340(2), 356(3), 353(2), 49 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Section 66(A) of Information and Technology Act, registered at police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 14. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 24, 2026 (shankar)