Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 31.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:9640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No.119 of 2017
.
Date of Decision: 31.03.2026
____________________________________________________________________
Baldev Raj and Another .........Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh .......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
____________________________________________________________________
For the Appellants: Ms. Kiran Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
rt Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General.
SI Inder Singh, IO, PS Palampur, present in
person along with record.
____________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of the
Cr.P.C. lays challenge to the judgment dated 28.03.2007 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at
Dharamshala, in Session Trial No.30/2006, and S.C. No.33-P/VII/06,
whereby afore Court though acquitted the appellants-accused under
Section 307 of the IPC, but sentenced them to undergo simple
imprisonment for the period of two years and pay fine to the tune of
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
2
₹10,000/- each for their having committed offence punishable under
Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that
Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to be filed against two
accused namely Baldev Raj and Lekh Raj (appellants herein) under
of
Sections 307 and 34 of IPC alleging therein that father of both the
accused died in September, 2005 and his Kriya Ceremony was fixed
rt
for 28.09.2005. One Murli Ram, whose daughter had been married to
the elder brother of the accused namely Atma Ram, came to the
house of the accused to participate in the Kriya Ceremony on
28.09.2005, accompanied by two other persons from his village.
Unfortunately, some oral altercation took place inter se accused and
afore person namely Murli Ram, regarding employment on
compassionate grounds on account of death of Kirpa Ram, father of
accused. Mother of both the accused was claiming that service on
compassionate grounds should be given to one of the accused namely
Lekh Raj, whereas wife of her elder son Atma Ram, who is daughter of
Murli Ram, was saying that job should be provided to her husband
Atma Ram. Allegedly, both the accused administered beatings to Saroj
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
3
Kumari and Murli Ram, however, on the intervention of maternal
uncle of the accused, matter was settled. While afore Murli Ram along
.
with his two other companions had left the house fo the accused and
had reached near the gate of house of the accused, Murli Ram heard
cries of his daughter Saroj Kumari, who was allegedly again given
beatings by accused. Murli Ram attempted to rescue his daughter,
of
but both the accused came forward and attacked him, as a result
thereof, he fell unconscious. In the afore background, case under
rt
Sections 307 and 34 of IPC came to be registered against both the
accused.
3. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence
adduced on record by the prosecution though acquitted both the
accused under Section 307 of the IPC, but held them guilty of offence
punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as per description given
hereinabove. In the afore background, accused approached this Court
in the instant proceedings, praying therein for their acquittal after
setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
recorded by Court below.
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
4
4. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that one of the
accused, namely Lekh Raj, died during the pendency of the present
.
appeal and as such, instant appeal qua him has abated. Respondent-
State has also not filed appeal against the acquittal of the accused
under Section 307 of IPC and as such, judgment of acquittal under
aforesaid section has attained finality.
of
5. Before appeal at hand could be heard and decided on its
own merits, an application bearing Cr.MP No.5221 of 2025 came to be
rt
filed under Section 528 of the BNS, 2023, seeking therein permission
to place on record additional documents i.e. compromise arrived inter
se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their
dispute amicably inter se them.
6. Since it came to be specifically averred in the application
that after recording of judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
which is otherwise laid challenge in the instant proceedings, parties to
the lis, who are closely related to each other, have resolved to settle
their dispute amicably inter se them, this Court before considering the
prayer for accepting the compromise and compounding the offence,
alleged to have been committed by the appellant-accused, deemed it
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
5
fit to cause presence of complainant as well as SHO of the Police
Station concerned.
.
7. Though in terms of order dated 16.03.2026, SHO of Police
Station concerned has come present, but he has informed this Court
that complainant Murli Ram has expired. While placing on record
status report issued under the signatures of Station House Officer,
of
Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, Mr.
Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, specifically stated
rt
before this Court that after passing of judgment, parties have entered
into compromise whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute
amicably inter se them. He also placed on record statements of wife of
Murli Ram as well as victim Saroj Kumari, who have categorically
stated that on account of amicable settlement arrived inter se them,
they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no
objection in case appellant is acquitted of his having committed
offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Along with the aforesaid status report, medical record has also been
placed on record, suggestive of the fact that accused-appellant Baldev
Raj is suffering from schizophrenia. Afore status report along with
medical record is taken on record.
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
6
8. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General,
after having perused status report as well as statements made by the
.
wife of the complainant as well as victim Saroj Kumari, stated that
though parties have entered into compromise, thereby resolving to
settle the matter amicably inter se them, but this Court may not lose
sight of the fact that appellant already stands convicted for his having
of
committed offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34
of the IPC. He stated that though wife of the complainant and victim
rt
Saroj Kumari have stated in their statement that they do not wish to
prosecute the case further, but the same may not be of any relevance
at this stage, especially when on the basis of statement made by
complainant as well as other material prosecution witnesses, Court
below has already held appellant-accused guilty of his having
committed offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34
of the IPC.
9. Question at this stage, which needs to be determined at
first instance is “whether compromise arrived inter se parties, after
passing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded
by learned trial Court, can be accepted or not?”
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
7
10. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment
passed in Ramgopal And Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
.
2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322. If the aforesaid judgment is read in its
entirety, it clearly suggests that Court while exercising power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 of the BNSS) may
proceed to accept the compromise, after recording the judgment of
of
conviction and order of sentence, if it has reason to believe that
compromise, if accepted, will bring harmony and peace inter se
rt
parties. Relevant Para of afore judgment read as under:
“11. True it is that offences which are ‘noncompoundable’ cannot be
compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers
under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would
amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320
Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no
patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences
in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been
consciously kept out as noncompoundable. Nevertheless, the limited
jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section
320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by
the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High
Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case
and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends
of justice.
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
8
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the
offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute
and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
.
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non
compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the
consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual
and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the
felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the
of
very object of the administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous
offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature,
can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
rt
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing
out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal
method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful
exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise
is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such
discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances
surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has
been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness
of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after
the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.
There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High
Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious
justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may
rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where
heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
9
Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan
(Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which
.
involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and
moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public
policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only,
for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large.
Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not
only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an
of
undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders,
who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social
boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no
guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”
rt
15. Given these settled parameters, the order of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh culminating into Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012,
to the extent it holds that the High Court does not have power to
compound a noncompoundable offence, is in ignorance of its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is, thus,
unsustainable. However, the judgment and order dated 9th January,
2009 of the High Court of Karnataka, giving rise to Criminal Appeal
No. 1488 of 2012 cannot be faulted with on this count for the reason
that the parties did not bring any compromise/settlement to the
notice of the High Court.”
11. Admittedly, in the instant case, appellant-accused was
initially charged under Section 307 of IPC, but as has been observed
hereinabove, he was acquitted of afore offence, however, learned
Court below, on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the
prosecution, held him guilty of his having committed offence
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
10
punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which
is otherwise compoundable.
.
12. The question which now needs consideration is whether
judgment 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
of
under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
rt
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society.
13. 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
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
11
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
of
offences.
14. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
12
quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
.
15. 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
of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320
Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
13
offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace
and amity between the two sides.
.
16. 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
of
2016, reiterated the principles/parameters laid down in Narinder
Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings.
rt
17. Since parties have compromised the matter with each
other and victim Saroj Kumari, at whose instance FIR came to be
lodged against the appellant, is no more interested in pursuing the
criminal prosecution of the appellant, this Court sees no impediment
in accepting the compromise and quashing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court.
18. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit
in the present appeal and accordingly the same is allowed.
Compromise arrived inter se parties is accepted, as a result thereof,
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS
2026:HHC:9640
14
Kangra at Dharamshala, in Session Trial No.30/2006, and S.C.
No.33-P/VII/06 is quashed and set aside and appellant is acquitted of
.
the charges framed against him under Section 325 read with Section
34 of the IPC.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
of
March 31, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 20:31:08 :::CIS