IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 444 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashish Sharma ……...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. Subhash Chander, 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. Anil Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0003/2026 dated 3.1.2026, registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 69 and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties. 2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant 2 proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of the respondents No.2- complainant (herein after referred to as “complainant”), who alleged that in the month of August 2024, she had gone to Ladraur Academy for police recruitment, where she came in contact of the petitioner, who had also come there with regard to army recruitment. Complainant alleged that since afore date, both of them started meeting and talking to each other and thereafter, on the pretext of marriage, petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes on number on occasions. She alleged that now petitioner is refusing 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. 3. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them, as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Respondent-State has filed reply under the signature of SHO, PS 3 Jawalamukhi, Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. 5. Respondent No.2 has come present in the court and is being represented by Mr. Anil Thakur, 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 since FIR in question is result of misunderstanding and at no point of time, wrong was committed by the petitioner coupled with the fact that, petitioner has apologized for his behaviour, 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 signature thereupon. Her statement is taken on record. 6. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional 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 under Section 69 of BNS. He submits that accepting prayer made in the 4 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, but since complainant, who is 24 years old, has categorically stated on oath before this court that FIR is result of misunderstanding and nothing happened against her wishes coupled with the fact that petitioner as well as complainant want to solemnize marriage, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequential proceedings, are not quashed, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter-se parties. 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 5 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 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, 6 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. 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 7 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. 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. 8 13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 0003/2026 dated 3.1.2026, registered at, Police Station Jawalamukhi, Police District Dehra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 69 and 115(2) of BNS 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. May 15, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge