2026:HHC:18394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.276 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Ishu Thakur and Another ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh and Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocates. 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. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, vice Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.32 of 2025, dated 20.03.2025, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Tahliwal, 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 2026:HHC:18394 2 lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Mr. Naresh Kumar (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 13.03.2025 at 12:30 pm, his brother, i.e. deceased Surinder Pal, was seen in the company of persons namely Ishu Thakur and Amandeep, petitioners herein, and he informed that he had gone on scooty bearing No.HP-80-A-9670 along with aforesaid persons, but has never returned. He alleged that on 17.03.2025, he lodged missing report at Police Station Tahliwal and on 19.03.2025, decomposed body of his brother was found at Sector 2, Nangal, Punjab and he has suspicion that persons namely Ishu Thakur and Amandeep have killed his brother. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioners, who already stand enlarged on bail. 3. Though after completion of 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, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. In afore background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for quashing and setting aside the FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending 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, Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Perusal of status 2026:HHC:18394 3 report, which is taken on record, reveals that Police have also recorded the statement of complainant as well as petitioners, suggestive of the fact that both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and on account of amicable settlement, complainant and his family does not wish to prosecute the case further. Complainant Naresh Kumar, who is also present today, categorically stated before this Court on 10.04.2026 that subsequent to lodging of FIR, it came to his notice that his brother died on account of overdose of Chitta and there is no role/hand, if any, of the petitioners in the death of his brother. He submitted that since his family does not suspect any role of petitioners, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR may be accepted and they be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 5. Mother of deceased, Ms. Toshi Devi has come present and is being represented by Mr. Abhinav Chopra, Advocate. She states that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, because there is no role, if any, of the petitioners in the death of her son, who has died on account of overdose of Chitta. She states that since family of petitioners is closely known to her family and they have very old relations, she as well as her family do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case 2026:HHC:18394 4 aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. Her statement made on oath is taken on record. 6. Having heard statements made on oath by complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though parties compromised the matter, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that petitioners herein are accused of heinous crime, punishable under Section 304 of IPC (now Section 105(3) of BNS). He states that compromise in such like cases may send a wrong message to the society, however, he fairly admits that chances of conviction of petitioners are very remote and bleak on account of statements made by the complainant as well as mother of deceased. 7. True it is that in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014)6 SCC 466, compromise in cases like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be accepted in routine manner, however, in the instant case, there is no concrete and cogent evidence of murder, if any, of deceased, that too by the petitioners. 8. Bare perusal of FIR as well as final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. reveals that complainant at first instance lodged missing report on 17.03.2025 and it is only on 19.03.2025, he lodged FIR, 2026:HHC:18394 5 sought to be quashed, when decomposed body of his brother was recovered from Nangal, Punjab. Though complainant himself never saw his brother in the company of petitioners, rather such fact, if any, came to his knowledge through somebody, but no such person has been associated in the investigation. Interestingly, missing report has also not been made part of the Challan. Post-mortem report clearly reveals that deceased died on account of overdose of Chitta and there was no injury on his person. Save and except complainant, no evidence has been adduced on record by the prosecution to prove guilt of the petitioners under relevant provisions of law. 9. Since complainant has categorically stated before this Court that subsequent to lodging of FIR, it transpired that his brother died due to overdose of Chitta, coupled with the fact that factum with regard to death of deceased due to overdose of Chitta stands confirmed with the placing of post-mortem report, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed is permitted to sustain, rather in that eventuality, petitioners, who otherwise on account of grounds, as have been discussed hereinabove, already stood enlarged on bail, shall be put to ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to fail. On account of aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, detailed hereinabove, this Court finds the case at hand to be a fit case for exercising power under Section 528 of 2026:HHC:18394 6 BNSS, where Court can proceed to quash the FIR to do the complete justice. 10. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 11. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 2026:HHC:18394 7 12. In Amish Devgan vs Union of India and Ors, (2021) 1 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “(vii) Conclusion and relief 116. At this stage and before recording our final conclusion, we would like to refer to decision of this Court in Pirthi Chand [State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 210] wherein it has been held : (SCC pp. 44-45, paras 12- 13) “12. It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and the charge- sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance with the provisions which are considered mandatory and effect of its non- compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases i.e. in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance issue of process under Criminal Procedure Code is availed of. A reading of a [Vide Corrigendum dated 20-3- 1996 issued from Residential Office of Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy.] complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence — the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power.” 2026:HHC:18394 8 13. In the case of Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 35, the Supreme Court held as under : “9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined 2026:HHC:18394 9 keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.” 14. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhishek Singh vs Ajay Kumar and Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1313, reiterated that: “9. The scope of the Court's power to quash and set aside proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, it was held: “8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High 2026:HHC:18394 10 Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.” 15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court had improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the appellant. It stands clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the matter, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents has to be established in the trial, in accordance with the law. The proceedings out of the subject FIR, mentioned in paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the file of the concerned Court.” 15. Reliance is also placed upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608. 16. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2, 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 petitioners, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 2026:HHC:18394 11 17. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.32 of 2025, dated 20.03.2025, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. May 19, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge