Smt. Swarn Garg And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1900 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 CRMMO No. 104 of 2021
                                                 Decided on: 09.03.2021




                                                                     .

     Smt. Swarn Garg and others                                  ....Petitioners.

                  Versus





     State of Himachal Pradesh and another                       ...Respondents.
     Coram
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1 No





     For the petitioners         :       Mr. R.L.Sood, Sr. Advocate with
                                         M/s Arjun Lall and Sanjeevani
                  r                      Sood, Advocates.

     For the respondents         :       M/s Somesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur
                                         and Sanjeev Sood, Additional

                                         Advocate Generals with Ms.
                                         Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate
                                         General for respondent No. 1


                                 :       Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate
                                         with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
                                         for respondent No. 2.




                                 :       Petitioners namely Smt. Swarn
                                         Garg, Smt. Nainee Garg, Reema





                                         Gharu and respondent No. 2 Sh.
                                         Akash Garg are present in
                                         person.





     Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for

quashing of FIR No. 68 of 2020, dated 18.07.2020, registered

under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Penal Code, at Police Station Pawanoo, District Solan, H.P. as well

as consequential criminal proceedings, if any, pending before the

learned Trial Court.

.

2. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Advocate General.

3. Respondent No. 2, Mr. Akash Garg, who is present in

person in the Court, has been duly identified by his Counsel Mr.

Vivek Sharma, Advocate. His statement has also been

independently recorded in the Court, wherein, he stated that he

has entered into a compromise with the petitioners/ accused as it

primarily was a family dispute and he is not interested in pursuing

the matter which led to registration of FIR No. 68 of 2020, dated

18.07.2020, registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471

and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Pawanoo,

District Solan, H.P. as well as criminal proceedings ensuing

therefrom, if any. A copy of compromise so arrived at between the

parties is appended with the petition as annexure P-3 and

execution of the same as also the contents thereof have also been

acknowledged by respondent No. 2.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has also very

fairly submitted that the respondent-State has no objection in case

petition is allowed and FIR in issue as well as consequential

criminal proceedings, if any, pending trial, are quashed and set

aside, especially in view of the fact that primarily it is a family

dispute.

5. Accordingly, in view of above, this petition is allowed

.

and FIR No. 68 of 2020, dated 18.07.2020, registered under

Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code, at Police Station Pawanoo, District Solan, H.P. as well as

criminal proceedings ensuing therefrom, if any, are quashed and

set aside, taking into consideration the compromise entered

between the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 and accused i.e.

present petitioners and statement to this effect, made by

respondent No. 2 in this Court. The compromise deed Annexure P-

3 as well as statement of the complainant made today in the Court

shall form part of the judgment.

Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so

also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 09, 2021

(narender)