IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 160 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Kushwant Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, 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. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ASI Sanjeev Kumar, PS Kullu, present with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 139, dated 10.6.2025, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 281 and 125(a) (b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongwith consequential proceedings, pending in the competent court of law on the basis of compromise. 2 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 10.6.2025, he along with his cousin namely Khushbant Singh was going to Mahindra Agency on motor cycle bearing registration No.HP490949. He alleged that when afore motor cycle reached near Talogi NH-03 Four Lane, Khushbant Singh, who was plying the vehicle in question, lost control, as a result of which, they fell on the road and suffered injuries. In the aforesaid background, case under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner at the behest of the complainant. Since complainant named herein above alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, FIR sought to be quashed, came to be instituted against him. 3. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings in the competent court of law. 3 4. Pursuant to order dated 11.3.2026, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS Kullu, perusal whereof reveals that parties have entered into compromise. Statement of the complainant has also been enclosed with the compromise deed. 5. Respondent No.2-complainant namely Amit Kumar, who is being represented by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, states on oath that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. He states that accident in question did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner- accused, rather on account of error of judgment. He states that since he as well as petitioner i.e. driver of the vehicle, have recovered from the injuries, he shall have no objection in case FIR alongwith 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, he also admits his signatures thereupon. 6. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further 4 states that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted. 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 Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 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 5 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 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. 6 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 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 7 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.2-complainant, 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 also, offences alleged to have been committed by the 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 the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak 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), FIR No. 139, dated 10.6.2025, 8 registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 281 and 125(a) (b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. March 19, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge