Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.02.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 24 February, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:3978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.1263 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.02.2026
.
__________________________________________________________________________
Shri Surmukh Singh and Others .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
of
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and
rt Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for
respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents
No.2 & 3.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 quashing of FIR
No.272/2022, dated 21.11.2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 451, 341,
323, 504, 506 and 427 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Baddi,
District Solan, 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
lodged at the behest of respondents No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who
alleged that petitioners/accused unauthorizedly entered the courtyard of
his house and thereafter extended threats. Complainant also alleged that
::: Downloaded on – 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3978
-2-
the accused, named in the FIR, damaged the windows of his house and
gave beatings to his family members. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as
.
detailed hereinabove, came to be instituted against the petitioners/accused.
3. Though after completion of the 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
of
amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as
such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings,
rt
praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent
proceedings pending before the competent Court of law.
4. Vide order dated 30.12.2025, this Court while issuing notices
to respondents No.2 & 3, called upon respondent/State to file status report.
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, though has filed
status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station Baddi, District
Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which is taken on record, but the same is silent
about the compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties, however, Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that save and except
offences committed under Sections 147, 148 and 149, all the offences
punishable under Sections 451, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the IPC are
compoundable.
5. Pursuant to afore order, respondent No.2/complainant-Mr.
Chaman Lal and respondent No.3-Mr. Bhupinder Singh, have come present
::: Downloaded on – 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3978
-3-
and are being represented by Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate. They state on
oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external
.
pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused,
whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.
They state that since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of
misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners/accused have
of
already apologized for their misbehavior/misconduct, they shall have no
objection in case aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings
rt
pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the
petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting
contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signature
thereupon. Their joint statement made on oath is taken on record.
6. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent
No.2/complainant-Mr. Chaman Lal and respondent No.3-Mr. Bhupinder
Singh, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that no
fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings
are allowed to continue against the petitioners. He further states that
otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are very remote and
bleak, on account of statement made by respondents No.2 and 3, as such,
he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners
is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is
quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted.
::: Downloaded on – 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3978
-4-
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 and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6
SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 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. Such offences
of
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
rt
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.
::: Downloaded on – 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3978
-5-
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
of
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
rt
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,
::: Downloaded on – 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3978
-6-
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
of
further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them
would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
11.
rt
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. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that
High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised
sparingly and with great caution, 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
::: Downloaded on – 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3978
-7-
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
.
13. 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
of
in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
14.
rt
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.272/2022, dated
21.11.2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 451, 341, 323, 504, 506 and
427 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, 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, if any.
February 24, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
Rajeev Raturi Judge
::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:33:32 :::CIS
