Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sant Ram & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 20 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.147 of 2026
Date of Decision: 20.03.2026
.
_______________________________________________________
Sant Ram & others …….Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others … Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi & Mr. Vipan Rajta,
rt Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. RaviChauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate, for respondentNo.2.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.22 of 2024, dated
19.05.2024 under Sections 366-A, 376, 372, 323 and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 21 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage
Act, registered at police Station, Kupvi, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings in Sessions Trial
POCSO Act 09 of 2024, titled State vs. Khaiya Ram and others
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
2
pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Shimla, District Shimla,
.
Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se
parties (Annexure P-5), whereby both the parties have resolved to
settle their dispute amicably interse them.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
of
pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the
respective parties, are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant
proceedings, came to be instituted at the behest of Sh. Santosh
rt
Kumar, maternal Uncle of respondent No.2/prosecutrix (hereinafter
referred to as the complainant), who alleged that maternal
grandfather of the victim/prosecutrix, Sh. Khem Chand, respondent
No.6 sold her minor granddaughter i.e. victim-prosecutrix to
petitioners No.1 and 2 in lieu of some money. He also alleged that the
victim/prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of incident, was also not
helped by her mother Smt. Reena respondent No.3, rather she also
encouraged his father, respondent No.6 to do unlawful act, as
detailed hereinabove. On the aforesaid complaint, FIR, sought to be
quashed, came to be lodged against the petitioners. During
investigation, it transpired that petitioner, namely Sant Ram,
solemnized marriage with the victim/prosecutrix and out of their
wedlock, one baby boy has born. Since at the time of alleged
marriage interse petitioner No.1 and victim/prosecutrix,
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
3
victim/prosecutrix was minor, coupled with the fact that she had given
birth to one child, a case under Child Marriage Act also came to be
.
registered against petitioner No.1, who is otherwise behind the bars
since 19th May, 2024. Though, after completion of the investigation,
police has already presented the challan in the competent Court of
law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have
of
entered into compromise, whereby they resolved to settle the dispute
amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been
made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR as well as
rt
consequent proceedings.
3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO,
Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which is
silent about the compromise, however, careful perusal of the same
reveals that petitioner No.1 is biological father of the child born from
the womb of the prosecutrix/victim. Investigating Officer, who is
present in Court, apprised this Court that at present victim/prosecutrix
has been residing in the house of her husband at village Gonth, Tehsil
Kupvi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
4. Respondent No.2/victim-prosecutrix, who has now
attained majority, has also come present in Court and is being
represented by Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate. She states on oath
before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
4
any external pressure has entered into compromise, whereby both
the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.
.
She states that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of
misunderstanding. She states that she of her own volition and without
external pressure has joined the company of petitioner No.1, who
subsequently solemnized marriage with her. She states that her
of
maternal grandfather as well as mother never compelled her to
solemnize marriage with petitioner No.1. She states that since at
present, she is residing in her in-laws house and living happy married
rt
life alongwith her child, she does not wish to prosecute the case
further and shall have no objection in FIR as well as consequent
proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, are quashed and
set-aside and accused, named in the FIR, are acquitted of the
charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the
compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits his
signature. Her statement is taken on record.
5. After having carefully perused the compromise placed on
record and heard the statement made on oath by the
victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate
General, states that though parties have entered into the compromise,
but this Court cannot be lose sight of the fact that petitioners No.1 and
2 are the accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 366-A,
376, 372, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 6 and
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
5
21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9
and 10 of the Child Marriage Act, however learned Additional
.
Advocate General fairly states that on account of the statement made
by the victim-prosecutrix, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused
are very remote and bleak.
6. True it is that petitioners herein are accused of heinous
of
crime punishable under Sections 366-A, 376, 372, 323 and 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 21 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Child
rt
Marriage Act, but once victim/prosecutrix has already solemnized
marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their wedlock one child has
born, who at present is 1 ½ years old, no fruitful purpose would be
served in case FIR, sought to be quashed, is permitted to continue,
rather continuation of the same would further harm the
victim/prosecutrix, who otherwise has stated before this Court that
she is living happy married life with her laws.
7. The question which now needs consideration is “whether
FIR’s 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 ( now section 528 of 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., since such offences are
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
6
not private in nature and have a serious impact on society”. Since in
the present case, victim/prosecutrix has attained majority and she has
.
already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and out of their
wedlock, one child has born, this Court is of the view that it may not
be in the interest of both the parties to continue with criminal
proceedings initiated at the behest of maternal uncle of
of
victim/prosecutrix.
8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra),
rt
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 ( now section 528 of
BNSS) 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
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
7
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
of
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
rt
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. Aforesaid view
taken by Hon’ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra 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 to compound
the 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
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
8
exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC
( now section 528 of BNSS) 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
of
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
rt
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, in the case at hand, respondent No.2/victim has
already solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and she is living
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
9
happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the
prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/accused for quashing of the
.
FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to
sustain may disturb the happy married life of petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2/victim. No doubt, while accepting prayer for
quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society
of
at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual,
however in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed
hereinabove, interest of victim/prosecutrix appears to be of
rt
paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioner /accused is
left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable
under Section 366-A, 376, 372, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Act,
ultimate loser would be respondent No.2/victim and as such, no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of
conviction of petitioners- accused and as such, this court sees no
impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for quashing
of FIR.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.22 of
2024, dated 19.05.2024 under Sections 366-A, 376, 372, 323 and 506
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS
10
read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 21 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the
.
Child Marriage Act, registered at police Station, Kupvi, District Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings in Sessions
Trial POCSO Act No. 09 of 2024, titled State vs. Khaiya Ram and
others pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional
of
Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Shimla, District
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, are quashed and set aside. Accused are
rt
acquitted of the charges framed against them.
14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
March 20, 2026
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on – 20/03/2026 20:45:45 :::CIS