Disposed¶30

Shubham and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2026CRMMO/244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of FIR on compromise; Section 528 BNSS 2023 petition; Section 482 Cr.P.C inherent power distinguished from Section 320 compounding; matrimonial/dowry FIR (498-A/504/506 IPC); acquittal after settlement; Narinder Singh guidelines paras 29–29.7; petty vs heinous offences; predominantly civil-character disputes; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Cr.MMO; Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Citable when arguing settlement-based quashing of non-heinous matrimonial/family-dispute offences with complainant's sworn consent.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0003 of 2022 dated 09.04.2022 (Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Hamirpur, H.P.) and consequent proceedings quashed and set aside; accused acquitted of charges framed against them; petition disposed of alongwith all pending applications. ¶30

Shubham and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Corruption | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.0003 of 2022 (Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Hamirpur) and the consequent proceedings can be quashed on the basis of the inter se compromise between complainant and accused, given the Apex Court's caution that the Section 482 Cr.P.C power is not to be exercised in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

This Court holds that the offences alleged do not involve moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime but are petty offences; since the accused and complainant have compromised the matter inter se and the possibility of conviction is remote, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings and quashing is appropriate.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

FIR No.0003 of 2022, dated 09.04.2022, under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Hamirpur, H.P., and consequent proceedings pending in the competent court are quashed and set aside, and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing — settlement of matrimonial dispute. Petition under S.528 BNSS 2023 by the accused (Shubham & Ors.) seeking quashing of FIR No.0003/2022 dt. 09.04.2022, P.S. Hamirpur (SS 498-A, 504, 506 IPC) and consequent proceedings on the basis of an inter se compromise. Complainant (respondent No.2) appeared in person and affirmed on oath a voluntary settlement — Rs.5,00,000 received, balance Rs.5,00,000 with her advocate Mr. Ashok Sharma — consented to quashing and acquittal, undertook to withdraw her cases, and disclosed that the parties had approached the competent court for divorce by mutual consent under S.13-B Hindu Marriage Act. Applying the Apex Court parameters in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Dimpey Gujral (2013) 11 SCC 497 and Parbatbhai Aahir (Crl.A. No.1723/2017), the Court held the alleged offences petty — involving no moral turpitude or grave/heinous crime — with conviction remote; FIR and consequent proceedings quashed and set aside; accused acquitted. Single-judge bench (Sandeep Sharma, J.); disposed 01.04.2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.244 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Shubham & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1State. Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

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 petitioners-accused (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No.0003 of 2022, dated 09.04.2022, under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication before competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2 colly), whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

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 No.2 (in short “complainant”), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 25.10.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs. She alleged that from day one, accused No.1, who happens to be her husband, and other family members started maltreating her on the pretext of bringing less dowry. She alleged that on 07.07.2021, her husband as well as other family members gave her beatings, as a result thereof, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house in the year 2022. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted against the accused.

¶9

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 inter se them.

¶10

4. Vide order dated 31.03.2026, though this Court directed respondent-State to file status report and to ascertain the factum of compromise, but neither status report has been filed nor factum of

¶11

¶12

compromise has been ascertained. However, complainant has come present in person and is represented by Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her 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. She states that since, as per compromise, she has already received sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and remaining sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate at Hamirpur, who shall hand over the same to her by tomorrow and thereafter, she will return the security cheque and undertakes to withdraw all the cases filed by her against accused No.1 and his family members in any court of law. She states that since she along with accused No.1 has already approached competent Court of law for divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby they have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent, she 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, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record.

¶13

¶14

5 . After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by the complainant, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy 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, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant on oath, as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.

¶15

6. 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society?

¶16

7. 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

¶17

¶18

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 the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.

¶19

8. 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

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

9. 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

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

10. 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.

¶26

11. 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.

¶27

12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.0003 of 2022, dated 09.04.2022, under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, H.P., as well as

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

¶31

alongwith all pending applications.

¶32

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶33

April 01, 2026 (sunil)

Shubham and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham and Others v. the 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

Baldev Raj Vs State

Bhagirath Vs Punjab National Bank

Ishwar Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Hp

Sandeep Kumar Vs Mohan Lal

Bhagu Devi @ Anita Vs Inder Singh

Ashok Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank