Sishupal Vs State of Hp

¶1

2026:HHC:14743

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.371 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 05.05.2026

¶5

_____________________ Sishupal	_______________ Versus	___________________ …….Petitioner
State of H.P. & others		… Respondents
_____________________ Coram:	_______________	___________________

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel & Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ASI Mahesh Kumar, present alongwith the record. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 262 of 2025, dated 05.08.2025, under Sections 118(2), 109, 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

2026:HHC:14743

¶12

compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

¶13

2. 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, Sanjeev Kumar ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 04.08.2025, while, he alongwith his cousin Ankit Kumar i.e. respondent No.3, had gone to the house of the petitioner, namely Sishupal, under whom they were working at the construction site at Nalagarh for payment, above named Sishupal, not only hurled abuses, but also stabbed Ankit Kumar, as a result thereof, he suffered grievous injuries. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioner, who is otherwise behind the bars since 08.02.2026. Initially police had registered the case under Section 118 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, but subsequently on the basis of the opinion rendered by the doctor, section 118 was converted into Section 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and thereafter, since 08.02.2026 petitioner is behind the bars. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has

¶14

3

¶15

2026:HHC:14743

¶16

approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.

¶17

Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith aforesaid status report, which is taken on record, statements made by the complainant as well as injured Ankit Kumar, have also been placed on record, whereby they have fairly acknowledged factum of compromise arrived interse parties.

¶18

Besides above, Respondent/ complainant, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and respondent No.3/injured Ankit Kumar have also come present and are being represented by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. They state that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioner, with whom they had been otherwise working for years together at construction site. They state that on account of amicable settlement arrived interse them as well as petitioner, they do not wish to prosecute the case further. They state that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that accused, named in the FIR, has already apologized for his misbehaviour and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future and

¶19

4

¶20

2026:HHC:14743

¶21

as such, they shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record.

¶22

After having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent No. 2/ complainant as well as injured, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that though parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner has been charged under Section 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for his having made deadly attack on the complainant as well as injured. Learned Additional Advocate General states that as per the medical opinion rendered on record, respondent-injured suffered grievous injury on his stomach, which could be dangerous to his life and as such, this Court may not accept the compromise, because it may give wrong signal to the society.

¶23

The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court i n Narinder Singh and others versu s State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 Cr..PC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous

¶24

5

¶25

2026:HHC:14743

¶26

and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

6

¶30

2026:HHC:14743

¶31

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. 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

¶32

7

¶33

2026:HHC:14743

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

In the case at hand, this Court finds that Doctor after having examined the respondent-injured opined the injuries to be grievous in nature. Most importantly, respondent-injured, who has come present before this Court, fairly states that he has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him on his stomach. No doubt, as per aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh case(supra), compromise, if any, made in case involving Section 307 of IPC(now Section 109 of BNS) is not to be accepted in

¶37

8

¶38

2026:HHC:14743

¶39

routine manner, but in case Court after having examined MLC is convinced that injury suffered by the injured is grievous but not dangerous to life, can proceed to compound the offence, especially with a view to bring harmony interse parties. In the case at hand, both the parties belong to Uttar Pradesh and they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and in case prayer made on their behalf for quashing of FIR is not accepted, pendency of the proceedings may further widen the rift interse parties, which is otherwise not in the interest of the parties.

¶40

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 262 of 2025, dated 05.08.2025, under Sections 118(2), 109, 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶41

Since petitioner is behind the bars, Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and send the same to the Superintendent of sub-Jail, Kishanpura, Nalagarh forthwith, enabling aforesaid authorities to release the petitioner immediately, subject to verification that he is not required in other case

¶42

9

¶43

2026:HHC:14743

¶44

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

¶45

alongwith all pending applications.

¶46

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶47

May 05 2026 (shankar)

¶48

Digitally signed by SHANKAR LAL DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 1933533e07baa798c8e03981ed5249aaab30041fdc541b62 SHANK 9a39e524cb9d2962, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= f0acdee2938bf725fb8b3ec1e185003804962ff708a378635c 113ca06384c947, CN=SHANKAR LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.05.06 09:50:33+05'30' AR LAL Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0

Sishupal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sishupal v. State of Hp

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

Sandeep Kumar Vs M/S Balwant Singh and Company

Roopa Devi Vs Ram Kumar Verma and others

H.P.Housing Urban Devlopment Authority Vs Ms Kapil Construction

Raja Jai Sayal Vs Rakesh Kathuria

Pardeep Walia Vs State of Hp

Vikram Vs State of Hp