Disposed

Hardev Singh and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jun 2026CRMMO/519/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused in an FIR arising from a road accident sought quashing on compromise. Complainant and injured witnesses affirmed settlement on oath; State raised no objection. Citing Supreme Court guidelines on quashing after settlement, the court quashed the FIR and proceedings, acquitted the accused, and imposed ₹5000 fine under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0010 of 2026 dated 09.03.2026 and consequential proceedings quashed; petitioners acquitted; petitioner Hardev Singh directed to pay ₹5000 fine under S.181 MVA within four weeks.

Hardev Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and… — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:22886

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.519 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.06.2026

¶4

__________________________________________________ Hardev Singh and Another	________________________ ……...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others	…....Respondents
Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_______________________ For the Petitioners:	___________________________________________________ Mr. Suneet Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, 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.
	Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.
_________________________	SI Rajeev Joshi, SHO T.T. P.S. Bhager, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused (for short ‘accused’) for quashing of FIR No.0010 of 2026, dated 09.03.2026, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, registered at Traffic-cumTourist Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, along

¶10

2026:HHC:22886

¶11

¶12

with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.

¶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-Satish Kumar (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) , who alleged that on 09.03.2026, at 09:00 am, while he was in his shop, situate at Narli Thapna, two vehicles bearing No.CH-01-CP9344 and A/F T022PB2125 came from opposite side on Bharari-Kiratpur fourlane and collided with each other, as a result thereof, occupants of both the cars suffered multiple injuries. Since complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles, petitioners Hardev Singh and Rajat, who at relevant time were driving the vehicles, as detailed hereinabove, came to be made accused in the FIR, sought to be quashed.

¶14

3. Though Police has already completed investigation in the case at hand, but before Challan could be filed in the competent Court of law, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record 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.

¶15

4. In terms of order dated 25.05.2026, respondent-State has filed status report, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged.

¶16

2026:HHC:22886

¶17

¶18

Complainant along with persons namely Janak Raj and Som Nath, who suffered injuries in the accident, has come present in Court and is being represented by Mr. Rahul 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 persons namely Janak Raj, Shilpa and Som Nath, who suffered injuries in the accident, have already compromised the matter with accused, namely Hardev Singh and Rajat, coupled with the fact that parties have adequately been compensated qua the damage caused to their vehicles, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR in question 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

5. Persons namely Janak Raj and Som Nath, who are also present in Court, state on oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioners, rather on account of error of

¶20

2026:HHC:22886

¶21

¶22

judgment. They state that since they have already recovered from the injuries suffered by them in the accident, coupled with the fact that they were taken good care by the petitioners, while they were under treatment, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR in question 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, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their joint statement made on oath is also taken on record.

¶23

6. Having heard statements made on oath by complainant as well as respondents No.3 and 5, 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-accused are very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶24

7. 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

¶25

2026:HHC:22886

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

8. 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.

¶29

9. 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

¶30

2026:HHC:22886

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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 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

¶35

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

¶36

2026:HHC:22886

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

11. 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.

¶40

12. 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.

¶41

13. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2, 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.

¶42

2026:HHC:22886

¶43

¶44

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.0010 of 2026, dated 09.03.2026, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, registered at Traffic-cum-Tourist Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶45

15. Since it has come on record that petitioner No.1-Hardev Singh, who at the time of alleged accident, was driving the vehicle bearing No.CH01-CP-9344, without any valid licence, he is required to be imposed fine, as per the mandate of Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, afore petitioner is directed to pay fine to the tune of ₹5000/before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, within a period of four weeks, failing which he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court.

¶46

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

¶47

June 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge

Hardev Singh and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev Singh and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hoshiyar Singh Vs Hpgb Baldwara

Jagjiwan Singh Vs Rohit Sharma

Jaan Muhammad Vs State of Hp and Others

Shammi Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Yadvinder Singh Vs Noop Ram

Dumesh Kumar Vs Bhagat Ram