The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise if the offences are not heinous or of mental depravity, and where the dispute is personal in nature, ensuring peace and amity between parties.

Whether approved for reporting?

Sandeep Sharma, J.
(Oral)

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 0053, dated 8.3.2026, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351 and 351 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise.

2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4-complainant, alleging therein. that on 8.3.2026, he along with his family had gone to see a cultural program at Paontasahib and while they were sitting in the show of celebrity named Babbu Maan, accused named in the FIR, who was sitting next to the seat of his son, started hurling abuses and gave merciless beatings to his son. Complainant alleged that accused, who was under the influence of liquor, also extended threats and made c asteist remarks. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be qruashed came to be registered against the petitioner, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties entered into compromise, wheoreby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-seC them, as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedinhgs pending in the competent court of law.

3. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO PS Paontashib, dated 5.7.2026, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Along with aforesaid compromise, statements given by the complainant as well as petitioner have also been placed on record suggestive of the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably.

4. Beside above, complainant has also come present and is being represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Complainant states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise, whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He stated that since FIR is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already apologized for his behavior and undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and rshall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted oof the charges framed against him. While admitting contents of the cCompromise to be correct, he also admitted his signature thereupon.

5. Having perused statement made on oath by respondent No.4, Mr.g Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly stated that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further stated that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, this court can pass appropriate orders.

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 BNSS) is not to be exercised i