Between vs State Of
2021 Latest Caselaw 5077 HP

                                          1

          IN   THE   HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL               PRADESH, SHIMLA

                     ON THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
                                      BEFORE




                                                                .

                     HON'BLE SH.JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
                CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION(MAIN) No.481 of 2021





    Between:
    RAM KRISHAN ALIAS RAMU SON OF
    SH. ROSHAN LAL, R/O VILLAGE AND
    POST    OFFICE   SATHANA,  TEHSIL
    FATEHPUR, POLICE STATION INDORA,





    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
                                                                       ....PETITIONER
    (BY SH. GURMEET BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE)

    AND

    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
       THROUGH    ADDITIONAL    CHIEF
       SECRETARY  (HOME)    TO   THE
       GOVERNMENT    OF     HIMACHAL
       PRADESH.



    2. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SH.
       DHARAM CHAND, RESIDENT OF




       VILLAGE    AND    POST    OFFICE
       SATHANA,     TEHSIL    FATEHPUR,
       DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.





                                                                   ....RESPONDENTS
    (BY SH.DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL
    ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.NARENDER





    THAKUR, SH.KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA AND
    SH.GAURAV SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
    GENERALS, FOR R-1).

    (BY SH. RAJ THAKUR, ADVOCATE FO R-2).

    Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

    This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:




                                               ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:14:20 :::CIS
                                        2

                      ORDER

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.133, dated 7.6.2006, registered at

police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., under sections 341, 323,

324 and 506 of IPC, as well as for setting aside the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 27.1.2011, passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., on

the basis of the compromise arrived interse parties (Annexure P-3),

whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably

interse them.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the

record are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings,

came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant

(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on

6.6.2006, while he alongwith persons namely, Anil Kumar, Mehar

Chand and Kulwant Singh were going to their respective houses from

Talwara, at around 11.00 PM, near Khatiar road, a car bearing

registration No. HP-54-6640 being driven by Ram Kumar son of Sh.

Roshan Lal stopped just in front of them and when he asked the

driver of the vehicle to remove the car, he brought a weapon from

inside his car and gave blow of the same on his left arm. Complainant

also alleged that other persons sitting in the car also gave him

beatings with kicks, as a consequence of which, he suffered injuries

on his left arm, head and back. Complainant alleged that Anil Kumar

and Kulwant Singh rescued him with great difficulty. In the aforesaid

.

background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings,

came to be lodged against the petitioner. After completion of the

investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of

law.

3. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora District,

Kangra after having found petitioner-accused guilty of having

committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and

506(ii) of IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment

for a period of two months under Section 324 IPC, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-

and in default of payment of fine to under undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 506 (II) IPC

and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 IPC and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid

judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Court

below, petitioner-accused has filed appeal in the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra, which is still pending adjudication.

During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner-accused has entered

into the compromise with the complainant/respondent No.2, whereby

both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse

them and as such, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in

.

the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as for setting

aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

27.1.2011 passed by learned trial Court.

5. Pursuant of order dated 30.9.2021, respondent-State

has filed status report, perusal whereof, reveals that though

respondent- complainant has admitted factum with regard to

compromise placed on record, but has stated that terms and

conditions contained in the compromise has been not fulfilled by the

petitioner-accused. Respondent-complainant has come present in

person in Court and is being represented by Sh. Raj Thakur,

Advocate.

6. Respondent-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 since petitioner-accused is

closely related to him and with the intervention of the respectable

members of the society, they have decided to live peacefully, he

does not wish to prosecute the case further and as such, he shall

have no objection in case prayer made in the petition is accepted. He

admitted his signatures on the compromise placed on record. His

statement is taken on record.

7. Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General

states that since petitioner already stands convicted vide judgment

.

dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Indora, District Kangra, H.P., present petition deserves dismissal

being not maintainable. While referring to 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, Mr. Thakur,

learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that High

Court shall not exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C in those

offences where the person stands convicted.

8. Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the

petitioner while placing on record latest judgment passed by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, titled as Ramgopal

and another versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, states that Hon'ble

Apex Court has categorically held that criminal proceedings involving

non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a

private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has

already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against the

conviction.

9. 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 petitioners that offences in the instant case can be

ordered to be compounded.

.

10. 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".

.

11. 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 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."

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in its r 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 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 r 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 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.

13. 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.

14. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramgopal case (supra)

has categorically held that Court while exercising power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C can proceed to accept the compromise and quash

the proceedings in those cases where offences are pre-dominantly of

a private nature and accused stands convicted. It would be

profitable to reproduce para Nos. No.13 and 14 of the aforesaid

judgment herein:-

"13.It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non

-heinous offences or where the offences are pre- dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws

evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to

.

exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view

the 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 incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. 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 & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3

and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the

society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means.

It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."

15. 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 complainant and petitioner 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.

16. Since the matter stands compromised between the

parties and respondent No.2/complainant 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/complainant are allowed to continue, as such,

prayer made in the petition at hand can be accepted.

17. 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.

18. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made

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

.

No.133, dated 7.6.2006, registered at police Station, Indora, District

Kangra, H.P., under sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC, as well as

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.1.2011,

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District

Kangra, H.P., are quashed and set-aside. The accused is acquitted of

the charges framed against him.

19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

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

    28th October, 2021                                (Sandeep Sharma),
          (shankar)                                          Judge