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 :::CIS2026: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 :::CIS2026: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 :::CIS2026: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 :::CIS2026: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