Himachal Pradesh High Court
Monish vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 23 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO No. 104 of 2026
Date of Decision: 23.3.2026
.
_____________________________________________________________________
Monish
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
rt Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.
Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the
State.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-
accused for quashing of FIR No. 005/2026, dated 29.1.2026, registered at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 132, 121(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise.
::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS 22. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged .
at the behest of respondent No.2-complainant, who had been working as Multi Task Worker Section Sarain in PWD, alleging therein that on 28.1.2026, at 3:30-4:00, while he was removing snow from Saranh to Lingjar though JCB Machine and had reached near Chiuna Nala, of petitioner, who was behind his JCB Machine, gave beatings to him and extended threats for no fault of him. In the aforesaid background, FIR
3. rt sought to be quashed came to be registered against the petitioner.
Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.
4. Though vide order dated 25.2.2026, this Court had called upon the learned Additional Advocate General to file status report, but neither status report has been filed nor instructions with regard to factum of compromise have been obtained, however respondent No.2 came present ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS 3 before this Court on 9.3.2026, who stated on oath that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner of his own volition and without .
there being any external pressure. He stated that he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner-
accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting of contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admitted his signature thereupon.
5. rt Having perused statement made on oath by respondent No.2, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly stated that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further stated that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, this court can pass appropriate orders.
6. 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 (now Section 528 BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS 4 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.
7. 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 of and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment rt 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.
8. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS 5 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 of criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of rt matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
9. 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 - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS 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.
10. 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.
11. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and the complainants have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS 7 conviction of the petitioner is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
.
12. 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 petitioner, this court sees no impediment in of accepting the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
13. rt Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 005/2026, dated 29.1.2026, registered at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 132, 121(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her.
14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.
March 23, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 20:31:17 :::CIS