IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
[Link] No.63 of 2026
Date of Decision: 24.03.2026
_______________________________________________________
Sagar & Ors. …….Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for the respondent-State.
Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer
has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused (in short
“accused”) for quashing of FIR No.102 of 2023, dated 6.7.2023,
under Sections 380, 457, 411, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, at
Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of
law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby
they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
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 lodged at the behest of
respondent/complainant No.4 Mr. Suresh Chand (hereinafter to be
referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 01.07.2023, he
along with his family had gone to Mohali. On 06.07.2023, at about
06:30 a.m., his neighbour Rakesh Kumar telephonically informed him
that somebody had committed theft in his house at Amb. He alleged
that he, after his having reached Amb, found that grill lock of the main
door of his house was broken and the lock of the inner room door was
also pried open. He alleged that belongings kept in the bed, almirah in
the kitchen and room were scattered and he found that air
conditioner, Inverter, Washing machine, Refrigerator, two Gass
Cylinders, one gas stove, four bathroom taps, ten bed sheets, three
iron Kadhais (woks), two silver vessels, one brass paraat, one ceiling
fan and one sewing machine installed/kept in the house (valued
approximately Rs.90,000-95,000/-) have been stolen by some
persons. In the afore background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the
instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the unknown
persons. However, during investigation, police found that petitioners
No.1 & 2 had committed theft from the house of the complainant and
3
petitioner No.3 had purchased the stolen articles from petitioners No.1
& 2. In the afore background, petitioners came to be named in the
FIR.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has
already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the
accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end,
complainant and accused named in the FIR have entered into
compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute
amicably intere se them, as such, accused have approached this
Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as
consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent court of law.
4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondent-State has filed reply under the signatures of SHO Police
Station Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, which is totally silent
about the compromise arrived inter se parties.
5. Complainant has come present in person and is
represented by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. He states on oath
that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has
entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties
have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. He states
that the since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of
4
misunderstanding and he has been duly compensated qua the
articles allegedly stolen by petitioners No.1 & 2, coupled with the fact
that accused have already apologized for their behaviour and have
undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he does not wish to
prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case, prayer
made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and
accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While
admitting the contents of compromise placed on record to be correct,
he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on
record.
6. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by
the complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate
General, states that though parties have entered into compromise, but
this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that accused have committed
heinous crime and in the event of their being discharged, wrong
message would go to the society. However, he fairly states that
complainant can always withdraw his complaint under Section 379 of
Indian Penal Code, as such, chances of conviction of the accused are
very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the
complainant on oath.
7. The question, which now needs consideration is “whether
FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex
5
Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and
another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Code”) 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?
8. 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 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from
the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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
6
the judgment Hon'ble Apex 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
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 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.P.C. Even in the judgment passed
7
in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while
exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C
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 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.
8
12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude
or any 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 the accused and complainant have compromised the matter inter
se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.102 of
2023, dated 6.7.2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 201 and 34 of
Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. , as well
as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused are
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 24, 2026
(sunil)