IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO Nos. 335 and 336 of 2026 Date of Decision: 5.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1.CrMMO No. 335 of 2026 Sonu Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents 2.CrMMO No. 336 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ASI Anuj Kumar, PS Chinpurti, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and ASI Jagmohan, PS Moin, Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh, present with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the 2 petitioners-accused, for quashing of FIR No. 008/2025 dated 17.10.2025, under Section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”) registered at Police Station Moin Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh and FIR No.47 of 2025, dated 18.10.2025 under Section 117 (2) of BNS, and Police Station Chintpurni, District Una, Himachal Pradesh along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that FIR No. 008 of 2025 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2- complainant namely Monika Devi, who alleged that on 17.10.2025, there was a DJ party in village Jalera, Tehsil Jaswan Kotla, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, wherein petitioner Sonu Kumar started behaving indecently and attempted to outrage her modesty. Complainant also alleged that accused named in the FIR also attempted to fondle with her private parts. In the afore background, afore FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner Sonu Kumar. After one day of lodging of afore FIR, above named Sonu Kumar lodged FIR No. 47 of 2018, against husband of the complainant namely Sanjeev Kumar, alleging therein that on 18.10.2025, while he along with his friends had gone to attend a marriage at Pakka Tiyala at 11:00am and had alighted from his vehicle to answer call of 3 nature, petitioner Sanjeev Kumar in CrMMO No. 336 of 2026 gave him beatings, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries. 3. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in FIR No. 47 of 2025 in the competent court of law, whereas challan in FIR No. 0008 of 2025, is yet to be filed, however before afore FIRs could be taken to their logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably, as such, petitioners in both the cases have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 4. Though offence alleged to have been committed in FIR No. 47 of 2025 under Sections 117(2) of BNS is compoundable, but since in afore FIR, which is otherwise result of afore FIR, accused Sonu Kumar has been charged under Section 74 of BNS, parties have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR under Section 528 of BNSS. 5. In terms of order passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO Police Station Chintpurni, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and SHO PS Moin, Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh, but same are completely silent about the compromise. 4 6. Respondent No.2-complainant Monika Devi in CrMMO No. 335 of 2026 and Mr. Sonu Kumar in CrMMO No. 336 of 2026 have come present and are duly represented by Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. 7. Ms. Monika Devi, states on oath before this Court that she, of her own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. She states that FIR is a 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, she shall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signature thereupon. 8. Mr. Sonu Kumar, states on oath before this Court that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that FIR is a 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, he shall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of 5 the charges framed against him. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signature thereupon. 9. Having heard statements made on oath by respondent No.2 in both the cases, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak, on account of statements made by complainant, as such, this court can pass appropriate orders. 10. No doubt, Section 117 of BNS is compoundable and as such, court can always proceed to compound the same while exercising power under Section 359 of BNSS. Moreover, once both the FIRs are interlinked coupled with the fact that parties in both the cases have settled their dispute amicably, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the petitioners for compounding the offences while exercising power under Section 528 read with Section 359 of BNSS. 11. 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 BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve 6 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. 12. 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 has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences. 13. 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, 7 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. 14. 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 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, 8 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. 15. 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. 16. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and complainants, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, are no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 17. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 008/2025 dated 17.10.2025, under Section 74 of BNS, registered at Police Station Moin 9 Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh and FIR No.47 of 2025, dated 18.10.2025 under Section 117 (2) of BNS, and Police Station Chintpurni, District Una, Himachal Pradesh along with consequent proceedings, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 18. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. May 5, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge