2026:HHC:2985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1101 of 2025 Reserved on: 1.1.2026 Date of Decision: 9.1.2026.

Jitender Chaudhary f ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others ...Respondents Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1&2/State : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General.

For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 113 of 2025, dated 3.11.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. and consequent

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

proceedings arising out of the FIR based on compromise effected between the parties.

2. The State has filed a status report asserting that Section 351(2) of BNS was added after the investigation.

3. Heard.

4. Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) makes the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 3u51(2) of BNS compoundable without the permission of thoe Court. Section 359(3) of BNSS provides that where theC offence is compoundable and a person is liable by virtue of Section 3(5) of BNS, the offence may be compounded. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of approaching the learned Magistrate and seeking the Hcomposition of the offence.

5. It was held in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 that inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised when a specific remedy exists. It was observed:

At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions:

“(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of anHy Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;

(3) That it should not be e xercised as against the express bar of law engraffted in any other provision of the Code.” o

6. It was laid down by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Gopal Dass vs State AIR 1978 Del 138, that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) is vested in the Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This jurisdiction cannot be exercised when a specific remedy is available under the other provisions of the Code. It Hwas observed:-

“8. In order to determine the question under consideration as to what is the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court becomes relevant. The inherent powers of the High Court inhere in it because of its being at the apex of the judicial set-up in a State. The inherent powers of the High Court, preserved by section 482 of the Code, are to be exercised in making orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 envisages that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court exercised by it with the object of achievinPg the above said three results. It is for this reason that section 482 does not prescribe the contours of the in.herent powers of the High Court which are wide enHough to be exercised in suitable cases to afford relief to an aggrieved party. While exercising inherent power s it has to be borne in mind that this power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. (