Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.419 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

¶3

Sh. Dinesh Kumar and Others

¶4

……...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

¶7

…....Respondents

¶8

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Neelam Thakur, 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 State.

¶9

Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶11

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No.52 of 2024, dated 18.06.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341, 323, 427, 325, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 192 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.

¶12

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-Mr. Khima Ram (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) , who alleged that on 17.06.2024 at about 07:15 pm, while

¶13

2

¶14

he was going back to his home, driving vehicle bearing No.HP-35-1562 and was short for 400 meters from his residence, Dinesh Kumar and Gulshan Kumar, petitioners No.1 and 2, came on the spot driving vehicle bearing No.PB-08-BC-6404 and blocked his path. He alleged that above named persons along with other person namely Shashi Prakash gave him beatings and caused damage to his vehicle. He alleged that his wife, who had reached on the spot to rescue him, was also given beatings by aforesaid persons. Dispute inter se parties arose on account of ownership of land. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be instituted against the petitioners.

¶15

Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical ends, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise and as such, petitioners have 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.

¶16

Though respondent-State has not filed status report, but Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly acknowledges factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties. He states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is counterblast to FIR No.51/2024, dated 18.06.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District

¶17

3

¶18

Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, lodged at the behest of wife of Dinesh Kumar, petitioner No.1. He states that aforesaid FIR already stands quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 30.03.2026 passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.1095 of 2025, titled as Khima Ram and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another , and therein respondent No.2 herein was accused, and in those proceedings, he has categorically stated that he shall have no objection in quashing the FIR No.52/2024, dated 18.06.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, lodged at his behest. 5. Complainant has also come present and is being represented by Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already apologized for their misbehavior and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement made on oath is taken on record.

¶19

4

¶20

Having heard statement made on oath by complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter se petitioners and complainant. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners are very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶21

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 S. 482 CrPC 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.

¶22

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

¶23

5

¶24

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.

¶25

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 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

¶27

6

¶28

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 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

7

¶31

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 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 complainant, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.

¶33

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.52 of 2024, dated 18.06.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341, 323, 427, 325, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 192 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶34

8

¶35

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along

¶36

with all pending applications.

¶37

May 14, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Birbal Guleria Vs Hans Raj and Another

Prem Pal and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Narotam Singh Vs State of Hp

Veena Devi Vs Santosh Devi and Another

Hirawati Vs Madan Lal Sharma

Ms Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Vs Rakesh Awasthi