Lekh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.122 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.03.2026

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Lekh Raj

¶4

…….Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State.

¶9

Ms. Nandita Guleria, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.

¶10

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶11

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused (in short “ accused ”) for quashing of FIR No.267/2024 dated 21.11.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2

¶14

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.

¶15

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 person namely Sameer Chaudhary (in short “ complainant ”), who alleged that on 20.11.2024, while he was standing on Jaral flyover, at about 07:15 p.m., one grey coloured scooter bearing registration No.HP-31-8971 came from Ghagal chowk and when the same reached near Naulakha service road, car bearing registration No.HP-34B-1416, being driven by the accused, came at a high speed and hit the scooter, as a result thereof, person namely Govind Ram, who was riding the scooter fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Complainant also alleged that driver of the car fled from the spot. Since accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the accused, case under relevant provisions of law came to be registered against him.

¶16

Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle

¶17

3

¶18

the dispute amicably inter se them, as such, accused has 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.

¶19

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, PS Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., but the same is silent about the compromise. Complainant Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and victim/injured Mr. Govind Ram have also come present and are represented by Ms. Nandita Guleria, Advocate. They state on oath that they of their own volition and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the accused, rather same took place on account of error of judgment. They state that since victim/injured has recovered from the injuries, they shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their statements are taken on record.

¶20

4

¶21

After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by

¶22

the complainant and victim/injured, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statements made by the complainant and victim/injured on oath, as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.

¶23

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 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., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society?

¶24

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

¶25

5

¶26

accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment, referred 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 the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.

¶27

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

¶28

6

¶29

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.

¶30

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 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

¶31

7

¶32

when offences are of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

¶33

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.

¶34

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, and 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, complainant and victim 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.

¶35

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.267/2024 dated 21.11.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶36

8

¶37

registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶38

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

¶39

alongwith all pending applications.

¶40

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶41

March 19, 2026 (sunil)

Lekh Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekh Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangeen Kumar Vs Saurabh Mehra and Another

Neeraj Khanna Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Chhechh Kumar

Trilok Chand Sharma Vs State of Hp

Ajay Prashar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ram Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others