IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.24 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Abdul Rehman …….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. Ashok K. Tyagi & Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocates. 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- State. Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ 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.16 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, under Sections 79, 324 (4), 281 and 351(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Criminal case No.134 of 2025 pending adjudication before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-4), whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings 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/complainant No.4 Ms. Sumitra Devi (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that one case was registered against the accused under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, accused entered into compromise with the complainant, whereby both the parties have resolve to settle the dispute inter se them. On the basis of compromise, FIR No.107 of 2016 dated 09.04.2016, registered at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh was quashed and set aside, but after quashing of FIR, accused again indulged in illegal activities and demanded sum of Rs.10,00,000/- which he had earlier paid in lieu of compromise arrived in the afore case. Complainant further alleged that accused repeatedly behaved indecently with her and claimed that she would live with him as his wife. She further alleged that on 29.01.2025, at about 10:00 a.m., accused struck her scooty with his car and when she attempted to signal the accused that her scooty had fallen to the 3 ground, accused repeatedly tried to run his car over her. In order to save herself, she threw stones at his car, however, upon gathering of public, accused fled from the spot. 3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the accused under Sections 79, 324 (4), 281 and 351(2) of BNS, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant and accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably intere se them and as such, accused has 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. Though vide order dated 08.01.2026, this Court had granted time to the respondent-State to file status report/reply, but neither reply nor status report has been filed. Complainant has come present in person and is represented by Mr. Arun Kumar, 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 FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that accused has already apologized for his behaviour and has undertaken not to repeat such 4 act in future. She states that 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 is acquitted of charges framed against him. 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. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by the complainant, 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 chance of conviction of the accused is very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 6. 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, 5 etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society? 7. 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. 8. 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 6 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. 9. 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, 7 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no 8 fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.227 of 2014, dated 19.06.2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, 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. 13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 05, 2026 (sunil)