Ashutosh Kumar Chandervanshi Vs State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 603 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.6.2026

_____________________________________________________________________ Ashutosh Kumar Chandravanshi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Chauhan, 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 respondent No.1. Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ASI Sukhdev Raj, PS Kothai, present in person with record.

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.56/2025, dated 14.07.2025, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law on the basis of compromise.

¶6

2

¶7

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.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 14.7.2025 at 4:00pm, while he was sitting in his house, he after having heard noise of falling of some vehicle near Chamera-Melath Road, rushed to the spot and found that one vehicle No. 22BH-6249A has fallen in the gorge 70 meters deep and one person was lying in injured condition inside the vehicle. 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.

¶8

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

¶9

4. Pursuant to directions contained vide order dated 16.6.2026, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS

¶10

3

¶11

Kotkhai, which is silent about the compromise, but respondent No.2 Balbir Singh, has come present and is being represented by Ms. Preetika Thakur, Advocate. Respondent No.2 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 was being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently, rather he only informed the police with regard to incident. He stated that since petitioner, who himself suffered injuries in the accident, has also recovered from the injuries, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made by him to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, respondent No.2 admits his signature on the same. Aforesaid statement is taken on record.

¶12

5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondents No.2, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 respondent No. 2, as such, he shall have no objection in case

¶13

4

¶14

prayer made by the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted.

¶15

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

¶16

5

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

6

¶20

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

¶21

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/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.

¶22

7

¶23

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017,

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondents 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 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.

¶27

8

¶28

13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.56/2025, dated 14.07.2025, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶29

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

¶30

June 19, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Ashutosh Kumar Chandervanshi v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Kumar Chandervanshi 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

Hardev Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Ajay Vs State of Hp

Adarsh Rana Vs State of Hp

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Hp

Deepak Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Kartar Singh Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Another