Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 19.08.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 19 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.763 of 2025
Date of Decision: 19.08.2025
.
Mahender Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. .....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Ajay
r Kumar Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S
Rawat, Additional Advocates
General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2, in person with
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
The petitioners have filed the present petition, under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.126
of 2023, dated 24.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in
question’), registered under Sections 341, 323, 506, 325 & 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC‘) with
Police Station, Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
2 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2,
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as
.
‘the trial Court’).
2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis
of the compromise, effected between the parties.
3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of
respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered
against them. r
4. After registration of the FIR, the police has
conducted the investigation and submitted the final report,
which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial
Court.
5. According to the petitioners, the matter has been
compromised between the parties. The terms and conditions of
the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are
annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P-2.
6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has
been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing of
FIR No.126 of 2023, as well as, all proceedings resultant
thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court.
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
3 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
7. When put to notice, respondents No.1/State has
filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 24.08.2023,
respondent No.2, moved a complaint before the police,
.
mentioning therein, that on that day, at about 11:00 AM, he was
on his way to Rampur in his village, when, he reached, near
Rampur Nunj Company, then, petitioner Mahender Singh alias
Galu, came their in vehicle No.HP.17C-7900. He parked the
vehicle there, in front of the complainant and started beating
him. He had also shown him gun and threatened to kill him, in
case, he made a complaint. As per the complaint, Servjeet
Singh was also with accused Mahender Singh. On the basis of
the above facts, he has prayed that action be taken against
them.
8. It is the further case of respondent No.1, that after
registration of the FIR, criminal machinery swung into motion
and the police had filed the charge sheet, after completion of
the investigation, before the learned trial Court.
9. Apart from this, it has been mentioned in the status
report that petitioner-Mahender Singh is having the following
criminal history:-
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
4 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
1. FIR No.51/2012, dated 06.02.2012, registered under
Sections 452, 323 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station, Paonta
Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. FIR No.258/2013, dated 26.08.2013, registered under
.
Sections 341, 323 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station, Paonta
Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.
3. FIR No.377/2015, dated 29.10.2015, registered under
Section 435 of IPC, with Police Station, Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmour, H.P.
4. FIR No.10/2016, dated 11.01.2016, registered under
Sections 147, 148, 313, 504, 451 & 427 of IPC.
5. FIR No.116/2016, dated 16.04.2016, registered under
Section 307 of IPC, with Police Station, Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmour, H.P.
6. FIR No.48/2018, dated 02.03.2018, registered under
Sections 324 & 504 of IPC, with Police Station, Paonta
Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.
7. FIR No.111/2018, dated 13.05.2018, registered under
Sections 307 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station, Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmour, H.P.
8. FIR No.37/2020, dated 14.04.2020, registered under
Sections 188, 269 & 270 of IPC, with Police Station,
Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
9. FIR No.116/2020, dated 25.08.2020, registered under
Sections 382, 323, 341 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station,
Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
10. FIR No.118/2021, dated 18.09.2021, registered under
Sections 457 & 380 of IPC, with Police Station, Puruwala,
District Sirmour, H.P.
11. FIR No.121/2023, dated 24.08.2023, registered under
Sections 341, 323, 506 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station,
Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
5 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
12. FIR No.154/2023, dated 25.10.2023, registered under
Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 427 & 120B
of IPC, with Police Station, Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
10. Similarly, the criminal history of applicant-Sarvjeet
.
Singh alias Shempi has also been mentioned in the status
report and the same has been reproduced as under:-
1. FIR No.116/2020, dated 25.08.2020, registered under
Sections 341, 323 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station,
Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. FIR No.118/2021, dated 18.09.2021, registered under
Sections 457, 380, 201 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station,
Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
3. FIR No.154/2023, dated 25.10.2023, registered under
Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 427, 120B
of IPC, with Police Station, Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
11. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, had
levelled allegations against the petitioners and had lodged the
FIR, in question, appeared, before this Court and has made a
statement, on oath, that a minor scuffle had taken place, due to
which, he had lodged FIR, in question, against the petitioners.
He has deposed that with the intervention of the respectables
of the society and in order to maintain their cordial relations and
to live peacefully in the society, the matter has now been
compromised. The said compromise is Annexure P-2.
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
6 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
12. On the basis of the compromise Annexure P-2,
respondent No.2 has prayed that he has no objection, if, the
present petition is allowed. The reason for entering the
.
compromise between the petitioners and respondent No.2 have
also mentioned that they are from same village and want to live
peacefully in the society.
13. Similar type of joint statement has been made by
the petitioners.
14. Heard.
15. The person, who at point of time, had levelled the
specific allegations against the petitioners, upon which, the FIR
in question, has been registered and thereafter, the police, after
conducting the investigation, has filed the charge sheet before
the learned trial Court, when appeared before this Court, has
exonerated the petitioners, by stating that now, matter has
been compromised between the parties.
16. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are from the
same area and now, they have settled the inter se dispute on
the basis of compromise Annexure P-2. Meaning thereby, a
positive step has been taken by them, which must be
recognized by this Court, as, the primary purpose of law, is to
maintain the peace and harmony in the society.
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
7 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
17. Considering the above fact, this Court is satisfied
about the genuineness of the compromise entered upon
between the parties.
.
18. Moreover, the present case does not fall within the
exception, as carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and
another, reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466,
whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated the
guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction
to continue with the criminal proceedings.
19. Perusal of judgment, referred to above, clearly
depicts that in para 29.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482
CrPC, is to be distinguished from the power, which lies in the
Court, to compound the offences under Section 320 CrPC.
20. No doubt, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court
has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings, even, in
those cases, which are not compoundable, where, the parties
have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised in view of the guiding principles as
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh’s
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
8 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
case (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced, as under:-
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
.
and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties andexercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 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 ofthe Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code,
the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have settled thematter between themselves. However, this power is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminalproceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to preventabuse of the process of any Court. While exercising
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is
to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two
objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions 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. Similarly,::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
9 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
for offences alleged to have been 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.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore is to be generally treated as crime against
the society and not against the individual alone.
However, the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC
in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.
It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for
the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the
charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
10 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered
by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On
the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court
can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility
.
of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept
the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings
whereas in the later case it would be permissible for
the High Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by
the fact that the settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason
that at this stage the investigation is still on and even
the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is
yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the
High Court can show benevolence in exercising its
powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of
the circumstances/material 7 mentioned above. On the
other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High
Court should refrain from exercising its power under
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
11 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the case finally
on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at
the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC
and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime
and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a
convict found guilty of such a crime”.
21. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present
case, in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in Narinder Singh‘s case (supra), this Court
is satisfied that the parties, i.e. the petitioners and respondent
No.2, have entered into compromise, in order to maintain their
cordial relations.
22. When compromise has been entered into between
the complainant (respondent No.2) and the accused
(petitioners), then, the chances of success of the trial against
the accused (petitioners) become very bleak.
23. Not only this, the acceptance of the petition will
save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which,
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS
12 ( 2025:HHC:28228 )
the learned trial Court would be in a position to utilize for some
other serious dispute to decide.
24. The criminal history of the petitioners has also been
.
mentioned in the status report. Admittedly, all those cases are
stated to be pending, but, accepting the compromise in the
present case, this Court is of the view that the petition is liable
to be allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- each,
by both the petitioners. 50% of the said amount be deposited
with the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, and 50% be
deposited with H.P. High Court Advocates, Welfare Fund.
25. It is further clarified that if the petitioners fails to
deposit the said amount, as ordered by this Court, within a
period of six weeks, then, the proceedings, in the present
petition shall be revived automatically.
26. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
August 19, 2025
(subhash)
::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:23:47 :::CIS