2026:HHC:7724 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.138 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Nikhil Chaudhary ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.4/2026, dated 09.01.2026, under Sections 281, 125(A), 106(1) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.6-Tilak Raj (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 09.01.2026 at 04:30 pm, while he had 2026:HHC:7724 2 come out from his house for going to his fields, motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-19-D-7928, being driven by the petitioner, came in high speed from Bhaderkali side and hit one scooty bearing registration No.HP- 9-C-4077, as a result thereof, two persons riding on the scooty fell on the ground and suffered injuries. Since complainant, named hereinabove, alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Police lodged FIR under Sections 281, 125(A) of BNS, however, subsequently on account of death of one of the rider of scooty, namely Sardar Ali, case under Section 106(1)of BNS also came to be lodged against the petitioner, who is otherwise 17 years old. 3. Though after completion of the investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 4. 4. In terms of order dated 10.03.2026, respondent/State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties. 2026:HHC:7724 3 5. Pursuant to afore order, complainant along with legal representatives of deceased-Sardar Ali, who have been arrayed has respondents No.2 to 4, have come present and are being represented by Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. Complainant as well as legal representatives of deceased Sardar Ali, namely Nazira Bibi, Nasib Din, Nizam Deen and Sheela Bibi, state on oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding as accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather accident happened on account of error of judgment. They state that since petitioner is a young person having bright career ahead, coupled with the fact that while late Sardar Ali was under treatment, petitioner as well as his family members took good care of him, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their joint statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. Having heard statement made on oath by complainant as well as legal representatives of deceased Sardar Ali, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned 2026:HHC:7724 4 Additional Advocate General, states that though parties had entered into compromise, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, one person has lost his life. He states that otherwise also, petitioner has committed heinous crime and as such, needs to be dealt with in accordance with law squarely for the reason that he was otherwise not authorised to drive the vehicle, but yet he drove the same unauthorisedly and caused death of Sardar Ali, who was aged 80 years. He states that otherwise also, under BNS, father of the juvenile is under obligation to pay fine to the tune of ₹25,000/- for his having permitted his minor son or daughter to drive the vehicle, however, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that on account of statement made by complainant as well as legal representatives of Sardar Ali, chances of conviction of petitioner are very remote and bleak and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. 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 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 2026:HHC:7724 5 8. 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. 9. 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 2026:HHC:7724 6 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. 10. 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, 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 2026:HHC:7724 7 further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 11. 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. 12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.6, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 13. In the case at hand, Since petitioner is minor and he was not in a possession of any valid driving licence issued by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, his father namely Mr. Rajesh Kumar is under obligation to pay the sum of ₹25,000/- as fine and as such, he is ordered to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine before the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Una, within a period of four weeks, failing which he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. 2026:HHC:7724 8 14. Though offence in the present case is serious in nature, since a person has lost his life in the accident, but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a minor, having a bright career ahead, coupled with the fact that the LRs of the deceased Sardar Ali have compromised the matter with the petitioner and they are no more interested in criminal prosecution of the petitioner, ends of justice would be met in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR is accepted. Moreover, the offence in question does not pertain to offence of moral turpitude, rape, dacoity, etc., therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.4/2026, dated 09.01.2026, under Sections 281, 125(A), 106(1) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. March 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge