Sh. Dev Raj vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5092 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                  ON THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
                                BEFORE




                                                            .
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 513 OF 2021

BETWEEN:-





     SH. DEV RAJ, S/O SH. MAN SINGH,
     R/O VILLAGE KHAIR, P.O. BIHINI,
     SUB-TESHIL CHHATRI, DISTRICT
     MANDI, H.P.                                                ....PETITIONER



     AND
                     r         to
     (BY SH. K.R. THAKUR, ADVOCATE.)

1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
     THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) TO
     THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
     PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.


2.   SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
     MANDI, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
3.   STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE




     STATION JANJAHELI, TEHSIL
     THUNAG, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.





4. SH.    KAMLESH     KUMAR, S/O
   SH.JALAM RAM, R/O VILLAGE





   SARAD, SUB-TEHSIL CHHATRI,
   DISTT. MANDI, H.P.                                      ....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SH. DINESH THAKUR,
     ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
     FOR RESPONENTS NO. 1 TO 3.)

     (BY SH.BHIM RAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE
     FOR RESPONENT NO. 4.)

     Whether approved for Reporting?

             This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:
                           JUDGMENT

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by

petitioner on the basis of compromise arrived at between him and

petitioner No. 4 Kamlesh Kumar, for quashing of FIR No. No. 69 dated

15.9.2021, registered in Police Station Janjaheli, Tehsil Thunag, distt.

Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

.

2. Petitioner No.4/Complainant Kamlesh Kumar and petitioner

Dev Raj are present in the Court today and their statements, on oath,

have been recorded separately.

3. In his statement, complainant-petitioner No.4 Kamlesh

Kumar has stated that he is serving as Jal Rakshak in IPH Department

and that he and petitioner-accused Dev Raj are residents of villages

adjacent to each other and in view of remorse expressed by the

petitioner and for continuing peaceful relations, he has agreed to

compromise the case and, therefore, he prays for quashing of FIR and

closure of proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. He has further stated

that he has entered into compromise and deposed in this Court, out of

his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or

threat of any kind.

4. In his statement, petitioner-accused in his statement has

deposed that he and complainant are residents of villages situated

nearby each order and before the incident and after the incident they

have never quarreled with each other and they have resolved the issue

with each other and that now he feels that the incident could have been

avoided, but unfortunately it had happened and the complainant has

agreed for compromise. He has further stated that he has deposed in

this Court, out of his free will, consent and without any external

pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

5. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC

582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized and advised that in

the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of

.

nature of the case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide

more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach,

based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should

be applied.

6. Offences in question and compoundable and for material on

record, do not fall in the category of offence termed to be prohibited, in

terms of the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded,

exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

7. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and

considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the

opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice

and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 69, dated 15.9.2021,

registered in Police Station Janjaheli, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi,

H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings

pending initiated against petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are

also quashed.

8. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

9. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment,

downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,

before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist

for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from

Website of the High Court.

                                               (Vivek Singh Thakur),
     th
28 October, 2021                                      Judge.
          (Keshav)