Kameshwar Himta vs State Of H.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 95 HP

                                                      1

          IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL                               PRADESH,
                                    SHIMLA

                                                                       Cr.MMO No.356 of 2020




                                                                             .
                                                                   Date of Decision: 4.1.2021





    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kameshwar Himta                                                          .........Petitioner





                                              Versus

    State of H.P. & another                                               .......Respondents





    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the Petitioner:
                         r           Mr.   Rupinder Singh Thakur, Advocate,
                                     through video-conferencing.

    For the Respondents:             Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate
                                     General, for respondent No.1/State, through
                                     video-conferencing.


                                      Ms. Shashi Kiran Negi, Advocate, for
                                      respondent            No.2,          through          video-
                                      conferencing.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioner for quashing of FIR No.190, dated 28.8.2018, under Section

505(2) of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sadar,

District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any,

pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of

the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2).

1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly

supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR, sought to be quashed in

.

the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of

respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), alleging

therein that on 24.08.2018, Workers of Youth Congress organized

protest near Vidhan Sabha Shimla and when they were stopped to

enter the Vidhan Sabha, they pelted stones and gave beatings to the

police officials. However, subsequently some of the youth congress

workers with a view to malign the Ruling Party i.e. BJP, circulated on

social media/ facebook/twitter photographs of injured people

depicting them to be injured during the Lathi Charge by police on 24th

August, 2018. Complainant alleged that since the Ruling party i.e. BJP

and its workers are being maligned for no reason, there is possibility

of confrontation between two political parties and as such,

appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against those

persons, who circulated on social media photographs of incident,

which has actually not happened. In the aforesaid complaint,

complainant named some of the persons including the present

petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid complaint a case under Section

505(2) of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner herein as

well as other persons named in the FIR, however, fact remains that

before the investigation could be completed in the case at hand,

petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have entered into the

compromise (Annexure P-2), whereby both the parties have resolved

to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In this background

petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings,

.

praying therein to quash and set-aside the FIR as well as consequent

proceeding, if any, pending in the competent court of law.

3. On 12.11.2020, this Court having taken note of the

averments contained in the petition as well as compromise placed on

record (Annexure P-2), deemed it necessary to cause presence of the

parties, especially respondent/complainant No.2 in the Court, so that

correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record

could be ascertained. Besides above, this Court also directed learned

Deputy Advocate General to verify the aforesaid factum of

compromise, if any, interse parties from the police station concerned.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, respondent No.2/complainant

has come present in Court and is being represented by Ms. Shashi

Kiran Negi, Advocate. Respondent No.2/complainant states on oath

before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being

any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the

petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their

dispute amicably interse them. He states that name of petitioner

wrongly came to be mentioned in the FIR, sought to be quashed,

because subsequently it transpired that he was not present during

the protest, rather photographs were circulated on social medial by

other persons named in the FIR. He further states that since he is

satisfied and convinced that at the time of alleged incident, petitioner

was not present in the protest organized by Youth Congress workers

and his name has been wrongly mentioned in the FIR, he shall have

.

no objection in case prayer made in the petition on behalf of the

petitioner for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, is

accepted. He also states that compromise placed on record is

genuine and bears his signature. His statement is taken on record

5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate

General while placing on record status report fairly states that

petitioner as well as respondent No.2/complainant has entered into

the compromise and as such, prayer made on behalf of the

petitioner for quashment of FIR may be accepted , but qua him only.

He states that since petitioner has categorically stated that at the

time of lodging of FIR, petitioner was not present and his name was

wrongly mentioned, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR

lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/ complainant as well as

consequent proceedings, are allowed to sustain because in view of

the statement given by respondent No.2/complainant, there are very

bleak chances of conviction of the petitioner and as such, he shall

have no objection in case FIR lodged against the petitioner here is

quashed and set-aside.

6. This Court, after having carefully perused the

compromise, which has been duly effected between the parties, sees

substantial force in the prayer having been made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that offences in the instant case can be

ordered to be compounded.

.

7. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C,

this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of

the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court

Cases 466, whereby 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 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 is to be distinguished

from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences

under section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the

Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal

proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where

the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However,

this power is to be as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No

doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with

.

caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would

be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been 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.

29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,

particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High

Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the

.

nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted

on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as

to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea

compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under

Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the

criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet

to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the

circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the

stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime".

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v.State of

Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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

under Section 482 Cr.PC 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 also held as under:-

"7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the

settlement arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were non-

compoundable. A two Judges' Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said

issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.

The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with

the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim

.

have settled their dispute would depend on the

facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the

crime. Heinous and se serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while

working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of r quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership

or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High

Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would

put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and

complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to

the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the 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. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC

.

at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all

consequential proceedings arising there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed."

9. Recently Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated

4th October, 2017, 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. It would be profitable to reproduce para

No. 13 to 15 of the judgment herein:

"13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court

had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471

read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to

embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:

"...In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the

prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R

.

Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the

submission that the first respondent was a woman "who was following the command of her husband" and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the

fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held that:

"... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to

be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code r of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction

Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The

offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score..."

"...A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence

or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is

not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system..."

15.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been

arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal

.

Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482

is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a

wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First r Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute,

revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while

dealing with a plea that the dispute has bee inherent n settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as

murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly

speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding

element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transac mental tions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

.

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a

mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic

system will weigh in the balance.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled as

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , has held as under:-

" 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions

of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code

to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those

arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the

parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions

which involved 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;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and

therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute

.

amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not

rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC

is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted

on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such rexercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in

paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground

that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of

the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a

compromise etc.

11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law

that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings

even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is

to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments,

referred hereinabove, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that

Court while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must

have due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to be

compounded. Hon'ble Apex Court has though held that heinous and

.

serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of

the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also observed that

while exercising its powers, High Court is to examine as to whether

the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and

prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not

quashing the criminal cases. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that

Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be

swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to

result in harmony between them which may improve their future

relationship. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of

Tamil Nadu supra, has reiterated that Section 482 preserves the

inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process

of any court or to secure the ends of justice and has held that the

power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is

non-compoundable. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court

has held that while forming an opinion whether a criminal

proceedings or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether

the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

12. In the case at hand also, 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 respondent No.2 have

compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of

conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in

continuing with the criminal proceedings.

13. Since the matter stands compromised between the

parties and respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the

criminal proceedings against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose would

be served in case proceedings initiated at the behest of respondent

No.2 are allowed to continue, as such, prayer made in the petition at

hand can be accepted.

14. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the

petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned

counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised, and

keeping in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the

compromise being genuine, this Court has no inhibition in accepting

the compromise and quashing the FIR as well as consequent

proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.

15. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made

hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, FIR

No.190, dated 28.8.2018, under Section 505(2) of Indian Penal Code,

registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., as well as

.

consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the

competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside and the

petitioner- accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

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

    4th January, 2021
       (shankar)
                       r           to     (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                    Judge