Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jaswinder Kaur And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 8 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.469 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.07.2026
__________________________________________________________________________
Jaswinder Kaur and Another .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others .......Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
__________________________________________________________________________
rt
For the Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, 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.
Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Legal Aid Counsel, for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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.224 of
2022, dated 19.10.2022, registered at Police Station Haroli, under Section
498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, along with consequential proceedings
pending in the competent Court of law.
2. Averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported
by affidavit, as well as documents annexed therewith, reveals that marriage
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
2
inter se respondent No.3-Ms. Seema and respondent No.2-Mr. Pradeep Singh
.
was solemnized on 03.01.2022 at Hoshiarpur, Punjab, as per Hindu rites
and customs. However, since on account of some matrimonial discord,
parties were unable to live together, respondent No.2 started living separately
after August 2022. Respondent No.2 lodged FIR, sought to be quashed,
of
alleging therein that she was being harassed constantly by her husband,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law for bringing less dowry. She also alleged
that on many occasions, she was given beatings. In the afore background,
rt
FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners as well as proforma respondent
No.3.
3. 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 ends, petitioners approached this Court in the instant
proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground that no case much less under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC is made out.
4. Having regard to the nature of dispute inter se parties, this
Court, on the joint request of learned counsel representing the parties,
deemed it necessary to summon both the parties for exploring the possibility
of amicable settlement. Parties came present before this Court and thereafter
the matter was referred to mediation. It is heartening to note that with the
sincere efforts put in by Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate, who acted
as Mediator, parties have been able to resolve their dispute amicably inter se
them. Careful perusal of order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
3
Mediator, which is made part of the instant judgment, reveals that
.
respondents No.2 and 3, who happen to be wife and husband, have decided
to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent by filing joint
petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the competent
Court of law. Since parties before their separation lastly resided in District
of
Una, respondents No.2 and 3 shall be filing divorce petition under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court at Una.
5.
rt
As per compromise, sum of ₹3,00,000/- in cash has been
handed over to respondent No.2-Ms. Seema before this Court, which fact has
been duly acknowledged by respondent No.2 as well as her lawyer Ms. Reeta
Hingmang, Advocate. Besides above, respondent No.3 has also handed over
gold ornaments, i.e. 2 rings and 1 earrings/tops, to respondent No.2. It has
been categorically stated by parties before the learned Mediator that in terms
of compromise arrived inter se them, they shall withdraw all the cases filed
by them against each other and in pursuance thereof, FIR sought to be
quashed in the instant proceedings can also be quashed.
6. Respondent No.2-Ms. Seema, who is present in Court and is
being represented by Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate, states on oath that she
of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered
into compromise, whereby she as well as respondent No.3, i.e. Mr. Pradeep
Singh @ Deepa, have decided to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual
consent. She states that in term of compromise, she has received sum of
₹3,00,000/- in cash as well as gold ornaments, as detailed in the
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
4
compromise, and as such, from today onwards, she shall have no claim of
.
any kind against petitioners as well as respondent No.3. She states that she
shall file joint petition with respondent No.3 under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act in the competent Court of law for getting their marriage
dissolved by way of mutual consent. She states that since she as well as
of
respondent No.3 have already compromised the matter, she does not wish to
prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR in question
as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law
rt
are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences
alleged in the FIR. Her statement made on oath is taken on record.
7. Respondent No.3-Mr. Pradeep Singh @ Deepa, who is present in
Court, also states on oath that he, of his own volition and without there being
any external pressure, has entered into compromise with respondent No.2,
i.e. Ms. Seema, whereby they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by
way of mutual consent. He states that in term of compromise, he has already
handed over sum of ₹3,00,000/- in cash as well as gold ornaments, as
detailed in the compromise, to respondent No.2 and now, he along with
respondent No.2 shall file joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act in the competent Court of law for dissolution of their marriage.
He states that from today onwards, he shall have no claim of any kind against
respondent No.2 and case, if any, filed by him against respondent No.2 shall
also be withdrawn. His statement made on oath is also taken on record.
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
5
8. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, after
.
having gone through the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned
Mediator as well as statements made on oath by respondents No.2 and 3,
fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as
consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain, rather
of
that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter se petitioners and complainant.
He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners-
rt
accused is very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement
arrived inter se parties.
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 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
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
6
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
of
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.
rt
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 statutes 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.
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
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
7
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
of
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
rt
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 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.
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 petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
8
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
of
criminal proceedings.
15. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and
rt
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 petitioners, this Court sees no impediment in accepting
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR along
with all consequential proceedings.
16. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.224 of 2022, dated
19.10.2022, registered at Police Station Haroli, under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 of IPC, along with consequential proceedings is quashed and
set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
17. Before parting, this Court, having taken note of compromise
arrived inter se parties and with a view to do complete justice, deems it fit to
direct respondents No.2 and 3 to file joint petition under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court at Una, within a period
of one week and thereafter, Court concerned shall decide the same
expeditiously. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, marital relations inter se
::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
9
respondents No.2 and 3 have broken irretrievably and there is no possibility
.
of rapprochement, as is evident from the facts and circumstances recorded
in the earlier part of the judgment and as such, this Court hopes and trusts
that learned Family Court while doing the needful shall waive off the ‘cooling
period’ and proceed to pass final order on the joint petition under Section 13-
of
B of the Hindu Marriage Act, after recording the statements of respondents
No.2 and 3.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with
rt
all pending applications.
July 08, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
Rajeev Raturi Judge
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
