IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.101 & 156 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MMO No.101 of 2026 Sidharth …….Petitioner Versus Sate of HP & Anr. … Respondents 2. Cr.MMO No.156 of 2026 Manish Rajan & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus Sate of HP & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner(s): Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent- State, in both the petitions. Mr. Anil Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2, in both the petitions. HC Sunil Kumar No.113, PS Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, present in person. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No.254, dated 02.10.2023, under Sections 376, 384, 504, 506 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Solan, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. 2. Precisely, the facts of the cases, 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/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant’), who alleged that in the month of June, 2023, she had come in contact with the petitioner-accused, namely Sidharth, through Instagram and since then, they had been talking and meeting with each other frequently. She alleged that on many occasions, petitioner-accused namely Sidharth demanded money from her, which she provided. She also alleged that on two occasions, petitioner-accused namely above named Sidharth told her that he was in great difficulty and requires money, whereupon she provided her mother’s ornaments. She also alleged that when she asked the Sidharth to return the ornaments and money, he not only gave beatings but also extended threats to her. 3 She also alleged that petitioner-accused namely Sidharth also sexually assaulted her against her wishes in Hotel Natraj, Una. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioners-accused under relevant provision of Indian Penal Code. 3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law against the petitioners-accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioners-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 under the signatures of SHO, PS Haroli, District Una, which is silent about the compromise arrived, if any, inter se parties. However, complainant has come present before this Court and is being represented by Mr. Anil Thakur, Advocate. Complainant states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. She states that money as well as 4 ornaments taken by the petitioners-accused have been deposited with the learned trial Court. She states that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has solemnized marriage with the petitioner namely Sidharath, as such, she does not want to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and they are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Petitioner-accused namely Sidharth as well as his mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi have come present before this Court and state that on account of amicable settlement inter se parities, money as well as ornaments taken by the Sidharth have been deposited with the learned trial Court pursuant to orders passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) NO.368 of 2024. They further state that on account of marriage inter se Sidharth and the complainant, their relations have become cordial and they are living happy married life. They state that they will not commit any unlawful act to harass and mentally torture the complainant, failing which they shall render themselves liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court. Their statement is taken on record. 5 6. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by the complainant, petitioner Sidharth and his mother, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but this Court cannot lose sight of fact that petitioner-accused are accused of heinous crime i.e. rape, as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners-accused for compromise. However, Mr. Panwar, fairly states that on account of statement made on oath by the complainant, chances of the conviction of the petitioners- accused are very remote and bleak. 7. True it is that petitioners-accused are accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 376, 384, 504, 506 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, but once complainant has already solemnized marriage with petitioner namely Sidharth, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR, sought to be quashed, is permitted to continue, rather continuation of the same would further harm the complainant, who otherwise has stated before this Court that she is living happy married life with her in-laws. 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. 6 482 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”. Since in the present case, victim/prosecutrix has attained majority and she has already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their wedlock, one child has born, this Court is of the view that it may not be in the interest of both the parties to continue with criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of maternal uncle of victim/prosecutrix. 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 7 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. 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 8 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.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, 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 9 Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 13. Since, in the case at hand, complainant has already solemnized marriage with petitioner namely Sidharth and she is living happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to sustain may disturb the happy married life of petitioner Sidharth and the complainant. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of complainant appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioners/accused are left to be prosecuted for their having committed the offence punishable under Sections 376, 384, 504, 506 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, ultimate loser would be complainant and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of petitioners-accused and as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR. 10 14. In view of above, this court finds the case at hand to be a fit case, where this court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR registered under relevant provisions of law. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.254, dated 02.10.2023, under Sections 376, 384, 504, 506 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Solan, H.P. as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioners- accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 24, 2026 (sunil)