Pawan Kumar vs State Of H.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 3394 HP

       IN    THE   HIGH   COURT OF HIMACHAL            PRADESH,
                             SHIMLA




                                                      .

                   ON THE 13th DAY OF MAY, 2022

                              BEFORE





               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

            CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC
            No.348 of 2022





    Between:

    1. PAWAN KUMAR, SON OF
    SH. DAYAL SINGH, RESIDENT

    OF VILLAGE THALA, POST

    OFFICE    BAYALA,    TEHSIL
    SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P. AGED 29 YEARS.


    2. DAYAL SINGH, S/O OF
    LATE SH. KANHIYA RAM,
    RESIDENT      OF   VILLAGE
    THALA,      POST    OFFICE




    BAYALA,    TEHSIL  SUNDER
    NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,





    H.P. AGE 54 YEARS.

    3. KANTA DEVI, WIFE OF





    SH. DAYAL SINGH, RESIDENT
    OF VILLAGE THALA, POST
    OFFICE    BAYALA,    TEHSIL
    SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P. AGE 51 YEARS.
                                                  ....PETITIONERS.



    (BY SHRI DALIP K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2022 20:06:53 :::CIS
                                        2


    AND




                                                               .
    1. STATE OF H.P.





    2. SMT. CHANDNI WIFE OF
    SHRI    PAWAN    KUMAR,
    RESIDENT    OF  VILLAGE





    THALA,    POST   OFFICE
    BAYALA, TEHSIL SUNDER
    NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
    H.P.





                                                     ....RESPONDENTS.

    (BY  SHRI  DINESH   THAKUR,   SHRI SUMESH   RAJ,
    SHRI SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,

    With SHRI MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
    GENERAL, FOR RESPONDENT NO.1

    (SHRI BALVINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT
    NO.2. )

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No



           This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the

    following:




                 JUDGMENT

Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on

behalf of respondent No.2.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing

of FIR No.254 of 2020, dated 05.07.2020, registered under Section

498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

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

.

as learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional

Advocate General.

3. Respondent No.2 ( Smt. Chandni), who is present in

Court, has been duly identified by her counsel Mr.Balvinder Singh,

Advocate. Her statement has also been independently recorded in

the Court, wherein she has stated that she has entered into a

compromise with the petitioners/accused and she is not interested

in pursuing the matter which led to registration of FIR No.254 of

2020, dated 05.07.2020, registered under Section 498A, 323, 504,

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

Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. A copy of the Compromise Deed

so arrived at between the parties is appended with the petition as

Annexure P­2 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 respondent­State has no objection in case this

petition is allowed and FIR in issue is quashed and set aside.

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

and FIR No.254 of 2020, dated 05.07.2020, registered under Section

498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as

.

ensuing criminal proceedings pending adjudication before the Court

of Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Sunder Nagar,

District Mandi, H.P., arising out of FIR No.254 of 2020, against the

petitioners, are quashed and set aside, taking into consideration the

compromise entered between the complainant i.e. respondent No.2

and petitioners/accused and statement to this effect, made by

respondent No.2 in this Court. The Compromise Deed Annexure P­2

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

shall form part of the judgment. Miscellaneously applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

May 13, 2022 (Rishi)