Arvind Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another

2026:HHC:6517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1279 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026

_______________________ Arvind Thakur	___________________________________________________ ……...Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pra	desh and Another …....Respondents
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for	ndeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State.
_________________________	Ms. Shivani, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.31 of 2025, dated 14.11.2025, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.

¶7

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) , who alleged that since year 2020, she knows petitioner. She alleged that petitioner had been telling her from day one that he is in love with her and

¶8

2026:HHC:6517

¶9

-2-

¶10

wants to solemnise marriage. She further alleged that on the pretext of marriage, petitioner sexually assaulted her in the year 2024 and thereafter, they maintained physical relations on number of occasions. Now since petitioner refused to marry her, she has no option but to institute complaint before the Police Station. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, Police after having lodged FIR against the petitioner/accused, conducted investigation and after completion of investigation, presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law.

¶11

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Women Police Station, Nahan, which is silent about the compromise. Complainant has also come present and is being represented by Ms. Shivani, Advocate.

¶12

Complainant, who has come present in Court for getting her statement recorded, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute

¶13

2026:HHC:6517

¶14

-3-

¶15

amicably inter se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding. She further states that she had been maintaining physical relationship with the petitioner/accused of her own volition and at no point of time, petitioner promised to marry her and as such, she shall have no objection in case FIR sought to be quashed is quashed and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signature thereupon. Her statement made on oath is taken on record.

¶16

Having heard statement made on oath by complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though complainant has compromised with the petitioner/accused, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner/accused, he does not deserve any leniency, however, he states that chance of conviction of the petitioner is very remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant and as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted.

¶17

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 is not to

¶18

2026:HHC:6517

¶19

-4-

¶20

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.

¶21

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 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.

¶22

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

¶23

2026:HHC:6517

¶24

-5-

¶25

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.

¶26

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 3 03 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, 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

¶27

2026:HHC:6517

¶28

-6-

¶29

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.

¶30

Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4^th 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.

¶31

It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that parties have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶32

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

¶33

2026:HHC:6517

¶34

-7-

¶35

the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.

¶36

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.31 of 2025, dated 14.11.2025, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS, registered at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶37

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications, if any.

¶38

March 10, 2026 Rajeev Raturi

¶39

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Arvind Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

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

Shiv Ram Vs Tara Dutt Nirmohi

State Vs Bias Dev

State Vs Bakshi Ram

Amit Kumar Vs Maneesh Srivastava

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Shamender Sood Vs Sanjay Dharmaik