IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 411 of 2026 Date of Decision: 8.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Shri Vishal Chechi ……...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. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj 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 respondent No.1/State. Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ASI Raghuvir PS Nahan District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, 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. 17/22 dated 4.2.2022, registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC along with consequential proceedings, pending in the competent court of law on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings 2 came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that two years back, she came in contact with petitioner through social media and thereafter they started talking and meeting each other. She alleged that petitioner proposed her for marriage and on 2.2.2022, he came to Nahan and assured her that within one or two days, he will solemnize marriage with her. She alleged that on afore date, petitioner took her to a nearby hotel and sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage, but thereafter, he has refused to marry her and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner, who is working in Indian Army. 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. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS 3 Sadar, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise, however respondent No.2-complainant, along with her maternal aunt namely Madhu has come present in the court and is being represented by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. She states on oath that she, of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. She states that FIR in question is result of misunderstanding and petitioner has already apologized for his behaviour. She states that on account of domestic problems, she is not in a position to pursue the case coupled with the fact that she wants to settle in her life, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR along with 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, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that petitioner is accused of heinous crime, punishable 4 under Section 376 of IPC. He submits that accepting prayer made in the instant case may send wrong message to the society, however he fairly admits that otherwise on account of statement made on oath by the complainant, chances of conviction are remote and bleak. True it is that petitioner herein is accused of heinous crime and in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466, court while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS), in normal circumstances should not quash the FIR on the basis of compromise, however in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, wherein complainant herself is not ready and willing to prosecute the case coupled with the fact that she wants to settle in her life, this court finds it fit case to quash the FIR along with consequent proceedings. 6. True it is that offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is crime against society and in the interest of society, prayer for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, cannot be accepted, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interest of the complainant appears to be of paramount importance, who on account of domestic problems does not want to prosecute the case further. During proceedings of the case, complainant apprised this Court that she has 5 already lost her father and mother is bed ridden on account of paralysis and as such, it is not possible for her to contest the case. Though this court repeatedly persuaded her to contest the case with the assurance that necessary support shall be provided, but yet she does not wish to proceed further with the case as she does not want to live a traumatic life. 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 (supra) 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 to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the 6 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. 7 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 8 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. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 17/22 dated 4.2.2022, registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. April 8, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge