Bhoop Singh vs State Of Himachal
2022 Latest Caselaw 5187 HP

                                1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                 ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022




                                                            .

                            BEFORE

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL





                  CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC
                  No. 430 of 2022

     Between:-





1.   BHOOP SINGH, S/O SH. MUNI
     LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
     GHANGAL,    POST   OFFICE
     MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDER
     NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
     HIMACHAL PRADESH.


2.   DHANESHWARI, W/O SH MUNI
     LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
     GHANGAL,    POST  OFFICE


     MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDER
     NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
     HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGED
     64 YEARS.




3.   PRAVEEN KUMARI, W/O SH.





     BHOOP SINGH, RESIDENT OF
     VILLAGE GHANGAL, POST
     OFFICE MAHADEV, TEHSIL





     SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT
     MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
     AGE 34 YEARS.

                                                 ...PETITIONERS
     (BY SHRI TARUN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   STATE    OF          HIMACHAL
     PRADESH.




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 20:03:08 :::CIS
                                         2



2.     POONAM KUMARI, W/O SH.
       PAWAN KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE




                                                                     .
       & POST OFFICE SORSAN,





       TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT
       MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

3.     PAWAN KUMAR, S/O SH. JAI





       GOVERDHAN, R/O VILLAGE &
       POST OFFICE SORSAN, TEHSIL
       KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI,
       HIMACHAL PRADESH.





4.     SUNITA SHARMA, W/O SH. RAM
       PAL SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE
       AND POST OFFICE PANJGAIN,
       TEHSIL   SADAR,   DISTRICT

       BILASPUR,        HIMACHAL

       PRADESH.

5.     MEERA SHARMA, W/O LATE
       SH. LEKH RAJ, R/O VILLAGE


       OMAL, POST OFFICE, TEHSIL &
       DISTRICT         BILASPUR,
       HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS




       (M/S SUMESH RAJ, DINESH THAKUR &
       SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE





       GENERALS, WITH MR. AMIT DHUMAL,
       DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL & MR.
       MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE





       GENERAL FOR R-1.
       SHRI ANUBHAV CHOPRA, ADVOCATE, FOR
       R-2 TO R-5).

       PARTIES ARE PRESENT IN PERSON.
       Whether approved for reporting? No.
__________________________________________________________
              This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:-




                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 20:03:08 :::CIS
                                    3

                               JUDGMENT

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

.

Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.

0143, dated 14.11.2021, registered under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504 &

506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station BSL

Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and learned Additional Advocate

General.

3. Respondents No. 2 to 5 are present in the Court in person.

They have been duly identified by Shri Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. Ms.

Poonam Kumari is the complainant, whereas respondents No. 3 to 5 are

the victims. Statement of Ms. Poonam Kumari to the effect that she has no

objection in case the FIR in issue is quashed has been recorded separately

and respondents No. 3 to 5 have also stated in the open Court that they

also have no objection in case this petition is allowed, as prayed for and

the FIR in issue is quashed and set aside. Copy of compromise deed so

arrived at between the parties is appended with the petition as Annexure P-

2 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 is quashed and set aside.

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

FIR No. 0143, dated 14.11.2021, registered under Sections 447, 341, 323,

504 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station

BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh is quashed

and set aside, taking into consideration the compromise entered between

the complainant and accused and a statement to this effect, made by

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

well as statement of the complainant made today in the Court shall form

part of the judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

July 01, 2022 (bhupender)