IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.817 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Jarnail Singh & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....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, Advocate. 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. None for respondent No.2. SI Raj Kumar, PS Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.169 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 147, 451, 323, 504, 506 & 188 of Indian Penal Code, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.

2. Before the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the accused could be considered, Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the 2 petitioner, fairly submits that inadvertently, a copy of FIR No. 168 of 2020 was placed on record instead of FIR No. 169 of 2020. He states that the petitioner ought to have placed on record a copy of FIR No. 169 of 2020. However, this Court finds that the accused have already placed on record a copy of the challan filed by the prosecution in FIR No. 169 of 2020, and the respondent-State has also filed a status report pertaining to FIR No. 169 of 2020. 3. 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 lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Smt. Shakuntla (in short ‘complainant’), who alleged that villagers/accused named in the FIR gave her beatings. She alleged that police, after having reached on the spot, found that villagers had obstructed the traffic of Bhadsali road for the reason that she had raised some objections with regard to use of land for the construction of a passage. She alleged that some of the villagers had physically assaulted her.

4. 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 and as such, accused, who are 40 in number, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 3 5. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report issued under the signatures of SHO PS Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of statement made by the complainant Shakuntla Devi, wherein she has fairly acknowledged factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties. She stated that on account of surgery, she is unable to come present before this Court to make her statement.

6. Vide order dated 03.08.2026, this Court had also directed the accused to cause presence of the complainant, but as has been noticed herein above, complainant has not been able to come present on account of illness. However, having carefully perused statement made by the complainant to the police dated 05.08.2026, copy whereof has been taken on record along with status report filed by the respondent-State, this Court finds that accused named in the FIR as well as complainant have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. As per the statement of the complainant given to the police, accused named in the FIR have already apologized for their behaviour and such apology has been accepted by the complainant. In terms of compromise, complainant does not wish to prosecute the case further. Besides making statement before the police, the complainant had also filed an affidavit before the learned Trial Court acknowledging the factum of compromise and stating therein that she does not wish to prosecute the case further. Though it would have been appropriate to record the 4 statement of the complainant in Court, but since she is unable to come present on account of surgergy, coupled with the fact that she has already tendered affidavit before learned trial Court, stating therein that on account of amicable settlement inter se parties, she does not wish to prosecute the case further.

7. This Court, on the basis of statement made by the complainant to the police, copy whereof has been taken on record, deems it fit to consider the prayer made on behalf of the accused for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 8. Having heard statement made on oath by the complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant to the police, as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 9. 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 S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental 5 depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

10. 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. 11. 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 6

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.

12. 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 7 further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

13. 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. 14. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the accused 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 parties 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. 15. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and 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 accused, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 8

16. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.169 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 147, 451, 323, 504, 506 & 188 of Indian Penal Code, 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. August 07, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.817 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Jarnail Singh & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....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, Advocate. 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. None for respondent No.2. SI Raj Kumar, PS Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.169 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 147, 451, 323, 504, 506 & 188 of Indian Penal Code, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.

2. Before the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the accused could be considered, Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the 2 petitioner, fairly submits that inadvertently, a copy of FIR No. 168 of 2020 was placed on record instead of FIR No. 169 of 2020. He states that the petitioner ought to have placed on record a copy of FIR No. 169 of 2020. However, this Court finds that the accused have already placed on record a copy of the challan filed by the prosecution in FIR No. 169 of 2020, and the respondent-State has also filed a status report pertaining to FIR No. 169 of 2020. 3. 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 lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Smt. Shakuntla (in short ‘complainant’), who alleged that villagers/accused named in the FIR gave her beatings. She alleged that police, after having reached on the spot, found that villagers had obstructed the traffic of Bhadsali road for the reason that she had raised some objections with regard to use of land for the construction of a passage. She alleged that some of the villagers had physically assaulted her.

4. 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 and as such, accused, who are 40 in number, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law. 3 5. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report issued under the signatures of SHO PS Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of statement made by the complainant Shakuntla Devi, wherein she has fairly acknowledged factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties. She stated that on account of surgery, she is unable to come present before this Court to make her statement.

6. Vide order dated 03.08.2026, this Court had also directed the accused to cause presence of the complainant, but as has been noticed herein above, complainant has not been able to come present on account of illness. However, having carefully perused statement made by the complainant to the police dated 05.08.2026, copy whereof has been taken on record along with status report filed by the respondent-State, this Court finds that accused named in the FIR as well as complainant have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. As per the statement of the complainant given to the police, accused named in the FIR have already apologized for their behaviour and such apology has been accepted by the complainant. In terms of compromise, complainant does not wish to prosecute the case further. Besides making statement before the police, the complainant had also filed an affidavit before the learned Trial Court acknowledging the factum of compromise and stating therein that she does not wish to prosecute the case further. Though it would have been appropriate to record the 4 statement of the complainant in Court, but since she is unable to come present on account of surgergy, coupled with the fact that she has already tendered affidavit before learned trial Court, stating therein that on account of amicable settlement inter se parties, she does not wish to prosecute the case further.

7. This Court, on the basis of statement made by the complainant to the police, copy whereof has been taken on record, deems it fit to consider the prayer made on behalf of the accused for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 8. Having heard statement made on oath by the complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant to the police, as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 9. 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 S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental 5 depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

10. 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. 11. 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 6

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.

12. 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 7 further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

13. 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. 14. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the accused 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 parties 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. 15. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and 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 accused, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 8

16. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.169 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 147, 451, 323, 504, 506 & 188 of Indian Penal Code, 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. August 07, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge