Disposed

Nand Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Apr 2026CRMMO/432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging cheating and forgery in obtaining a bank agriculture loan via a forged jamabandi. After full settlement with the bank under the One Time Settlement Scheme and with no objection from the bank and State, the High Court quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nand Ram Vs State of Hp and Others — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.432 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 22.04.2026

¶4

____________________________________ Nand Ram Versus	___________________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
____________________________________ Coram:	___________________

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner:	Mr. Aashish Kumar,	Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol Additional Advocate Chauhan & Mr. Advocates General,	& Mr. Vishal Panwar, Generals with Mr. Ravi Anish Banshtu, Deputy for the respondent/State.
	Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Nos. 2.	Advocate, for respondent
___________________ Sandeep Sharma, Jud	_________________ ge (oral):	___________________

¶7

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0016 of 2017, dated 28.06.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sangla, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.

¶8

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

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. Ram Singh, Manager of the UCO Bank Sangla (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) , who alleged that petitioner applied for an agriculture loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the said bank on 12.09.2013 and, in support thereof, submitted the jamabandi. He alleged that on the basis of aforesaid jamabandi, the bank sanctioned an agriculture loan to the tune of Rs. 6, 00,000/- in favour of the petitioner- accused. However, the petitioner allegedly failed to repay the loan amount despite repeated requests and reminders issued by the bank. Thereafter, the bank forwarded the jamabandi, submitted by the petitioner at the time of sanction of loan, to the Tehsil Office, Sangla for verification, whereupon it was found that the said jamabandi was neither recorded in the name of the petitioner-accused nor did it contain any entry reflecting mortgage of ₹6,00,000/-. In this background, the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 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, petitioner has entered into compromise with the respondent-bank, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably under “One time Settlement Scheme”. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in

¶12

¶13

the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending the competent court of law.

¶14

Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that since the matter stands amicably settled with the respondent-bank under the “One Time Settlement Scheme” and the entire outstanding loan amount has been paid, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is competent to quash the FIR as well as all consequential proceedings pending before the competent court of law.

¶15

4. It is not in dispute that the factum with regard to receipt of the entire settled amount under the “One Time Settlement Scheme” stands duly acknowledged in the statement of Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank. He has categorically stated that the respondent-bank has no objection in case the FIR as well as the consequent proceedings pending before the competent court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioneraccused is acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. His statement is taken on record. Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel for the respondent-bank has also placed on record instructions dated 21.04.2016 regarding deposit of amount due to the bank and bank has no objection in case the petition is allowed.

¶16

¶17

Mr. Vishal Panwar learned Additional Advocate General,

¶18

after having heard the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-bank, 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. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondentbank and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.

¶19

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 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

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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 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

¶27

¶28

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

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 petitioner and respondent/bank 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.

¶31

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 0016 of 2017, dated 28.06.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sangla, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in

¶32

¶33

the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is

¶34

acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶35