Himachal Pradesh High Court
Varun Dev Chaunan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO Nos. 73 to 78, 80 to 84 of
.
2021
Date of decision: 26.2.2021
1. Cr.MMO No. 73 of 2021
Varun Dev Chaunan. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
2. Cr.MMO No. 74 of 2021
Swaran Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
3. Cr.MMO No. 75 of 2021
Ajay Kumar Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
4. Cr.MMO No. 76 of 2021
Rajiv Sirkeck. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
5. Cr.MMO No. 77 of 2021
Baldev Singh Negi. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
6. Cr.MMO No. 78 of 2021
Sandeep Mahajan. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
7. Cr.MMO No. 80 of 2021
Sandeep Didwal. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
8. Cr.MMO No. 81 of 2021
Prem Singh Negi. ...Petitioner.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:17:16 :::HCHP
2
Cr.MMO No. 73 of 2021 & connected
matters
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
9. Cr.MMO No. 82 of 2021
Yoginder Thakur. ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
10. Cr.MMO No. 83 of 2021
Yadvinder Thakur. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
11. Cr.MMO No. 84 of 2021
Pankaj Chauhan.
Versus
to ...Petitioner.
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner(s): Ms.Anu Tuli, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate
General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
Petitioners in these petitions have approached this Court
for quashing of FIR No. 164 of 2019, dated 22.7.2019, registered in
Police Station West, Shimla, H.P. under Sections 341, 143, 147, 149,
353, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that offence, as
alleged in the FIR, has not been committed by the petitioners and
further that even if the contents of FIR are taken to be true as it is, for
arguments sake only, even then on the basis of contents of FIR as well
as material on record, it does not disclose commission of any offence
by the petitioners under the Sections mentioned in the FIR.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
Cr.MMO No. 73 of 2021 & connected
matters
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that in identical cases Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in
.
Cr.MMO No. 51 of 2020, decided on 24.1.2020, titled as Rajiv Jiwan
Vs. State of H.P. and Cr.MMO No. 339 of 2020, decided on 22.2.2021,
titled as Anu Tuli Azta Vs. State of H.P., have quashed this FIR, i.e.
FIR No. 164 of 2019 qua the petitioners therein on the ground that
there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations that
petitioners therein had committed the offence alleged in the FIR.
4. The contention of petitioners that they are identically
situated to the petitioner in Cr.MMO Nos. 51 and 339 of 2020 has not
been disputed on behalf of respondent-State, after going through the
record made available to learned Deputy Advocate General.
5. Judgments passed in Cr.MMO Nos. 51 and 339 of 2020
have attained finality. Being identically similar to the petitioner therein,
petitioners herein are also entitled for the same treatment and for the
reasons assigned in the said Cr.MMOs for quashing of FIR lodged
against co-accused in identical circumstances, present petitions
deserve to be allowed and accordingly FIR No. 164 of 2019, dated
22.7.2019, registered in Police Station West, Shimla, H.P., under
Sections 341, 143, 147, 149, 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is
quashed qua petitioners herein, in terms of Cr.MMO Nos. 51 and 339
of 2020.
Petitions stand disposed of along with pending
application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
26 February, 2021 Judge.
(Keshav)
