IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.397 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.04.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar …….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. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 7. ASI Jai Ram, police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, present alongwith the record. _______________________________________________________ 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.09 of 2026, dated 03.02.2026, under Sections 281 and 125-A of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other documents 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, Sh. Naresh Dutt (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 03.02.2026, while he had gone to Kandla driving his car bearing registration No. HP-01S-1821 and had reached near Sanogi, a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-22-D-7981, being driven by the petitioner, namely Ashwani Kumar, came in high speed from the opposite side and fell into 200 feet deep gorge. He alleged that he after stopping his vehicle, with the assistance of local persons, evacuated the occupants of the said car, who had suffered multiple injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. HP-22-D-7981. Complainant alleged that since accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against him. Though, police completed the investigation, but before challan could be filed before the competent court of law, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they resolved to settle the dispute amicably interse them. In 3 the aforesaid background, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings. 3. In terms of the orders passed by this Court, respondent- State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise. However, respondent/complainant, namely Naresh Dutt as well as the injured, namely Smt. Neena Dhiman, wife of the petitioner, Ayushi and Aavya minor daughters of the petitioner, who allegedly suffered injuries in the accident, have come present in Court and are being represented by Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate. 4. Respondent/complainant, namely Sh. Naresh Dutt, 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 both the parties 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 because he, at no point of time, had reported to the police that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather upon witnessing the vehicle being driven by the petitioner fall into a gorge, he, with the assistance of local persons, rescued the occupants of the car. He states that since all the injured, who are otherwise closely related to the petitioner, have recovered from their injuries and they do not want to prosecute the case further, 4 he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed 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. Smt. Neena Dhiman, on her behalf as well as on behalf of her two minor daughters, namely Ayushi and Aavya, also states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, who otherwise happens to be her husband. She states that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding, because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment. She states that since she alongwith her two minor daughters have already recovered from the injuries suffered by them in the accident, coupled with the fact that vehicle in question was driven by her husband, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. 5 6. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent No.4/complainant and the respondents/injured, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by respondent Nos. 2 and the respondents/injured and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 7. True, it is that in the case at hand, two of the injured are minors and as such, question which needs determination is, whether mother of the injured is competent to enter into the compromise on their behalf or not?. Section 320(4) of Cr.P.C clearly provides that when the person, who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court compound the offence. Since injured in the instant case are minors and petitioner herein has been charged under Sections 281,125-A of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, mother of the injured is competent to enter into the compromise on their behalf, especially when same appears to be in the interest of the minor. 6 8. 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 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. 9. 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 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 judgment Hon'ble Apex Court 7 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 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 8 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 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 petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or 9 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 petitioner and respondent No.4/ complainant and respondent No. 5 to 7/ injured 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. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), No. No.09 of 2026, dated 03.02.2026, under Sections 281 and 125-A of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh 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. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. 16. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 30,2026 (shankar)