IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.132 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep 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. Rajesh. K. Sharma, 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. Manish Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 08 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025, under Section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 inter se parties (Annexure P-3), 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 instituted at the behest of respondent No.3, Sh. Attru (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that his younger daughter i.e. respondent/victim(name with held to protect her identity) had been complaining abdomen pain and as such, on 11.03.2025 he alongwith his wife took her to Nahan hospital, where she gave birth to one girl. He alleged that his family as well as family of the petitioner had talked about the marriage interse victim/ prosecutrix and the petitioner, but before marriage, both had been meeting each other. He alleged that petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of his daughter, who at the relevant time was 17 years old, sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as a result thereof, she became pregnant and gave birth to one baby girl. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against the petitioner. Petitioner herein, who remained in custody for more than three month, has been already enlarged on regular bail by the competent court of law. Since petitioner and respondent/victim have now solemnized marriage, instant petition has been filed at the behest of the petitioner for 3 quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law. 3. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings in terms of order dated 06.03.2026, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and respondents No.2 and 3 have also come present in Court and are being represented by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. 4. Respondent No.3/complainant, Sh. Attru, states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding because prior to the alleged incident petitioner stood engaged with his daughter, who otherwise now after having attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner. He states that since petitioner and his daughter are living happily with their minor daughter, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature. His statement is taken on record. 4 5. Respondent No.2/victim-prosecutrix also states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has come to this Court for getting her statement recorded. She states that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding because nothing had happened against her wishes. She states that since she as well as petitioner has solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock one child has born, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signature. Her statement is taken on record. 6. Status report filed by the respondent-State, nowhere indicates factum with regard to compromise, if any, arrived interse parties. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably, but having regard to the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, it may not be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR. However, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly admits that otherwise on account of the statements made by respondent No.3/complainant and respondent No.3/victim, chances of conviction of petitioner- accused 5 are very remote and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 7. 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. 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., since 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 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, 6 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. 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. 10. 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 7 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. 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. 8 12. Since, in the case at hand, respondent No.2/victim has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner and she is living happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to sustain may disturb the happy married life of the petitioner and respondent No.2/victim. 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 victim/prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioner /accused is left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable under Section 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, ultimate loser would be respondent No.2/victim 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 accused and as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioner for quashing of FIR. 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 08 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025, under Section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 9 Act, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12, 2026 (shankar)