Shamsher Singh v. State of H.P

both the parties. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 06.07.2026, in which he stated that he had reported the matter to the police. He entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily, with the intervention of elder members of the society. He does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise.

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 that the FIR can be quashed even after recording a conviction, provided the matter is pending before some Court. It was observed at page 640:

We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 CrPC are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her 3 legal remedies and the finality is sub judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings based on a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fides. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).

A similar view was taken in Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, wherein it was observed at page 539: “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been concluded or the appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. The societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying that in cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incident. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482CrPC would be to secure the ends justice. There can be no hard-and-fast rectitude, keeping in view 4 constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482CrPC may lead to rigid or specious justice, which, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para 29 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, para 15: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706].

This position was reiterated in Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 465: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1882, wherein it was observed at page 468: “8. Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-AIPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Respondent 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life.

11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating Respondent 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal 5 life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course to secure the ends of justice.”

In view of these binding precedents, the Court can exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings based on a compromise effected between the parties even after the judgment has been passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

The petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 332 and 353 of IPC. This Court has quashed the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC in Sumit Kumar vs State of H.P. (2020) SCC Online H.P. 436 and Murari Lal vs State of H.P. (2023) HHC 628 based on a compromise effected between the parties. These judgments are binding upon this Court.

In view of the binding precedent, F.I.R. No. 77 of 2007, dated 31.05.2007, registered at Police Station Rohru, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 6 and Section 189 of IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of it are quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

The application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 158 of 2014

This Court has quashed the F.I.R. No. 77 of 2007, dated 31.05.2007, registered at Police Station Rohru, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and Section 189 of IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of it as per order passed in Cr.MP No. 2068 of 2026; hence, the present revision is allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. are ordered to be set aside. Fine amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner/accused. The present petition stands disposed of.

13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

The record of the learned Courts below be returned along with a copy of this order. 31st August, 2026(Ravinder) (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge