2026:HHC:6089 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.112 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Vikas 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. Atul Verma, 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 respondent-State. Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ 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. 69 of 2025, dated 01.04.2025, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e Police Challan No. 69 of 2025 pending adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6089 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 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 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 01.04.2025, at about 4.30 PM, while he was standing near his house at Gubradu, he saw one car rolling down from the road near Chatrudu. Upon noticing the same, he immediately reached on the spot and, with the help of local people took the two persons, namely Sh. Vikas Kumar and Saurav to the hospital on account of their having suffered multiple injuries in the accident. Complainant alleged that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Vikas Kumar, who otherwise found to be under the influence of liquor at the time of his medical examination. In the afore background, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be registered against the driver of the vehicle namely, Vikas Kumar. 3. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already 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 have resolved to settle the dispute amicably interse them. 3 2026:HHC:6089 4. Pursuant to order dated 01.03.2025, the respondent- State has filed status report under the signature of SHO, Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, who has also come present in person. Though, status report filed by the respondent-State is silent about the compromise, but learned Additional Advocate General states that since the petitioner herein was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor at the relevant time, he does not deserve no leniency. 5. Respondent-complainant, namely Ravinder Singh Dogra is also present and is being represented by Mr. Virender Sharma, 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, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that though FIR was lodged at his behest, but he had no occasion to see whether petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently under the influence of liquor, rather he had simply informed the police with regard to the accident. He states that since petitioner as well as other injured, namely Saurav have recovered from their injuries, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and 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 4 2026:HHC:6089 contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures upon the same. His statement is taken on record. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though in view of the statement made by the complainant, no fruitful purpose would be served in permitting the FIR as well as consequence proceedings sought to be quashed to continue, but this Court, while passing an appropriate order, may take note of the fact that petitioner was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor and in case no action is taken against him, he may cause harm to many persons in future. 7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that factum with regard to petitioner having consumed liquor at the time of driving the vehicle is yet to be proved by the prosecution because at the time of the accident, petitioner was not under the influence of liquor, rather he had consumed liquor one day prior to the accident. He states that petitioner is presently serving in the Assam Rifles and is a disciplined solider of Indian Army. He states that in case the instant prayer made on his behalf is not accepted, his entire career would be jeopardized. 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. 5 2026:HHC:6089 482 Cr.P.C.( 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. 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(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( now section 359 of BNSS). 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 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 6 2026:HHC:6089 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( now section 359 of BNSS). 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 (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 7 2026:HHC:6089 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 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/complainant have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is 8 2026:HHC:6089 remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 14. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 69 of 2025, dated 01.04.2025, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e Police Challan No. 69 of 2025 pending adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, 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 March 06, 2026 (shankar)