Naresh Chand and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.373 of 2025

Date of Decision: 08.04.2026

___________________ Naresh Chand & anothe	________________________ r … Versus	______ ….Pet	______ itioners
State of H.P. & another	…	Respo	ndents
___________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for re	________________________ ndeep Sharma, Judge. porting?¹	______	______
For the Petitioners:	Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Adv	ocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Additional Advocate Genera Chauhan Deputy Advocate respondent-State. Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate No.2.	Vishal ls with Genera , for re	Panwar, Mr. Ravi l, for the spondent
___________________ Sandeep Sharma, Jud	________________________ ge (oral):	______	______

¶5

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 38 of 2019, dated 05.04.2019, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

¶6

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

¶7

2

¶8

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

¶9

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, Sh. Parvesh Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) , who alleged that petitioner No.1, on the strength of fake degree of Shastri, obtained employment against the post of Assistant Pujari at Jagannath temple Bara-Chowk, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh. 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 the dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending the competent court of law.

¶10

3. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, police Station, Sadar, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise arrived interse parties has been duly acknowledged.

¶11

4. Respondent-complainant, namely Parvesh Sharma is also present and is being represented by Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. He states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the

¶12

3

¶13

compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that he has already got employment in Education Department, Himachal Pradesh as Shastri teacher and as such, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and 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 the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures upon the same. His statement is taken on record.

¶14

After having heard the statement made on oath by the complainant and perused the compromise placed on record, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioners have entered into the compromise with the complainant, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioners are accused of serious crime, whereby they have attempted to obtain employment on the strength of fake degree, however he fairly admitted that chances of conviction of the petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.2/complainant on oath and as such, this Court may pass appropriate order.

¶15

4

¶16

Though, it has been claimed at the behest of the complainant that petitioner No.1 was given appointment against the post of Assistant Pujari at Jagannath Temple on the basis of fake degree, but there is nothing to suggest that temple where petitioner No.1 was given appointment is a government institution or is being controlled by the government, rather same is run by private management, which simply on the basis of knowledge of the subject, offered appointment to petitioner No.1 against the post of Assistant Pujari. Moreover, after lodging of the complaint, petitioner No.1 resigned from the post of Assistant Pujari and thereafter complainant has also got job in the Education Department as Shastri and as such, he does not wish to prosecute the case further. Since there is no material adduced on record by the petitioners as well as respondentState suggestive of the fact that on the strength of fake degree, petitioner No.1 ever obtained any employment or attempted to take benefit of such certificate, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, especially when complainant has no objection qua the same

¶17

The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s 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 S. 482 Cr.P.C.( now section 528 of BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity

¶18

5

¶19

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

¶20

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(now Section 528 of BNSS) is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code( now section 359 of BNSS). No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code(now Section 528 of BNSS), 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.

¶21

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

¶22

6

¶23

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.

¶24

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( now section 359 of BNSS). 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 (now Section 528 of BNSS) 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

¶25

7

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by petitioners 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 petitioners and respondent/complainant have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶29

8

¶30

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well

¶31

as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 38 of 2019, dated 05.04.2019, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶32

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶33

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶34

April 08, 2026 (shankar)

Naresh Chand and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Chand and Another 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

Jagsir Singh Vs CBI

Raj Kumar Dogra Vs M/S Ashtvinayak Tours and Travels

Amrit Saini and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Mursaleen Vs State of Hp

Lac and Another Vs Sunpa Devi (Since Deceased through LRs Kula Nand and Anr) and Others

M/S Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp