Disposed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jun 2026CRMMO/503/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) BNS for a motor accident based on compromise with the complainant and injured. Complainant and injured affirmed settlement on oath; State raised no objection. Holding the offences petty and non-heinous, the court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.253/2024 dated 28.8.2024, PS Una, and consequential proceedings quashed; accused acquitted.

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

¶1

2026:HHC:21227

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CrMMO No. 503 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.6.2026

¶4

_____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Rajeev Kumar ……...Petiti Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respond
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶5

	……...Petitioner
Versus
	…....Respondents

¶6

For the Petitioner: Ms. Ankita, proxy counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Subhash Chander, proxy counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5.

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No 253/2024, dated 28.8.2024, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”), registered at Police Station Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law on the basis of compromise.

¶9

2026:HHC:21227

¶10

¶11

2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 27.8.2024, while he was coming back from Jammu in his truck bearing registration No.HP12A7995 and had parked his truck on the side of the road at a place called Jhaleda, District Una for taking rest, he heard big noise and found that car bearing registration No. PB74B-4910 Alto, being driven by the petitioner namely Rajeev Kumar in rash and negligent manner has banged with the rear side of his truck. Complainant alleged that he immediately after alighting from the truck made an attempt to rescue the occupants of the car, who had suffered serious injuries. Since complaint named herein above alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, FIR under the relevant provisions of law came to be registered against the petitioner.

¶12

3. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant

¶13

2026:HHC:21227

¶14

¶15

proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings in the competent court of law.

¶16

4. Though this Court had called upon the respondent-State to file status report and verify the factum of compromise, but neither status report has been filed nor factum of compromise has been ascertained. On the other hand, respondent/complainant along with injured Mr. Sanjeev Kumar has come, present and is being represented by Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocate. Respondent No.4- Complainant Ravinder Yadav, stated on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has come before this Court to make statement. He stated that FIR sought to be quashed is result of misunderstanding because he does not know whether car being driven by the petitioner banged with his truck on account of his rash and negligent driving, rather he only informed the police with regard to the accident. He stated that since respondent No.5, who suffered injuries in the accident, has compromised the matter with the petitioner, he shall have no objection in case prayer made by him to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted.

¶17

2. Respondents No. 5 Sanjeev Kumar, stated before this Court on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they

¶18

2026:HHC:21227

¶19

¶20

have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. He stated that FIR is result of misunderstanding and accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather same happened on account of error of judgment. He stated that he has already recovered from the injuries coupled with the fact that while he was under treatment, petitioner took great care of him, he does not want to prosecute the criminal proceedings further and shall have no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside.

¶21

3. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, respondents No.4 & 5 admit their signatures on the same. Aforesaid statements are taken on record.

¶22

5. Having heard statements made on oath by respondents No.4 and 5, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by respondents No. 4 and 5, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted.

¶23

2026:HHC:21227

¶24

¶25

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 CrPC (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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 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 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. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code (Section 528 of the 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

¶26

2026:HHC:21227

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

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 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.

¶30

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

¶31

anr. (2012) 10 SCC 3 03 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

¶32

2026:HHC:21227

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

2026:HHC:21227

¶37

¶38

principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.

¶39

11. In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner 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 the complainant 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. 12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondents No.4 & 5, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, are no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.

¶40

13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No 253/2024, dated 28.8.2024, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of BNSS registered at Police Station Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, along with

¶41

2026:HHC:21227

¶42

¶43

consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted

¶44

of the charges framed against him.

¶45

14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.

¶46

April 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge