Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tilak Raj Aged About 42 Years Son vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 306 of 2022
Between:
1. TILAK RAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON
OF SHRI AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE CHALUNA, P.O. LUDDU,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.,
2.
MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SON OF SHRI SEKHU RAM, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE KHALANI, PO LUDDU,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.,
3. VINEET KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
SON OF SHRI MADAN KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O.
LUDDU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHAMBA, H.P.,
4. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SON OF SHRI DHARAM SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHALANI, P.O.
LUDDU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHAMBA, H.P.,
5. MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
SON OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE KADPAIE, P.O. RAJHERA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:03:46 :::CIS
2
6. MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
.
SON OF SHRI JEET SINGH, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE TANDLI, PO RAJHERA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P
....PETITIONERS
(MR. VISHAV KISHORE, PROXY
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF MR. SURENDER
K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
BANGALI BAGICHA, TUTIKANDI,
SHIMLA, H.P.
r to
SHRI RATTAN SINGH SON OF SHRI
JEETO, RESIDENT OF SATYA NIWAS,
....RESPONDENT
(MS. ANAMIKA CHAUHAN, PROXY
COUNSEL, ON BEHALF OF MR.SANJAY
VERMA, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of
the petitioners for quashing of private complaint No. 12/2021 filed by the
respondent under Section 499 read with Section 120B of IPC as well as
consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the
basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.
2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported
.
by an affidavit, reveal that complaint sought to be quashed in the instant
proceedings came to be filed at the behest of respondent-complainant
Rattan Singh, before the learned CJM, Shimla, who alleged that on
11.6.2018, petitioner No.1 had moved application before Superintendent of
Police District Chamba, alleging therein that one Sh. Jeetu & Satya, father
and sister of respondent alongwith respondent threatened petitioner No.1
to do away with his life. He alleged that petitioners No. 2 to 4 also hatched
and entered into criminal conspiracy with petitioner No.1 with an intention
to harass and defame him and his family members. He alleged that since
on the date of the alleged incident he was present in his office at Shimla,
police officials also visited his office to verify his presence in the office at
Shimla. Police conducted inquiry with regard to his presence in the office
on the date of the alleged incident, as a result of which, his reputation was
tarnished in the office and as such, appropriate action is required to be
taken against the petitioners in accordance with law.
3. Court below having taken cognizance of the complaint
summoned the accused and fixed the matter for notice of acquisition, but
before that petitioners have approached this Court in the instant
proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid complainant as well
as consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that it does
.
not disclose the offence against them and the same has been filed with a
view to wreck vengeance and harass them.
4. Having regard to the nature of dispute inter-se parties, this
Court deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties and
accordingly, in terms of order dated 14.9.2022, parties have come present.
It is heartening to note that both the parties have decided to settle their
dispute amicably inter-se them. During proceedings of the case, they have
decided to bury their differences and live peacefully in future.
5. Both the petitioners and respondent stated on oath that they of
their own volition and without there being any external pressure have
entered into compromise with each other, whereby both the parties have
resolved to settle their dispute amicably. As per compromise, both the
parties would withdraw the cases, if any, filed by them against each other.
Respondent categorically stated that since petitioners have apologized for
their misbehavior and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such
act in near future, he shall have no objection in case prayer made in the
instant petition for quashing of the complaint as well as proceedings
pending in the competent court of law is accepted. Both the parties
undertook before this Court that in case they fail to abide by the terms and
conditions of the compromise, they shall render themselves liable for penal
.
consequence as well as contempt of Court. While acknowledging the
contents of the compromise, they also admit their signatures on the same.
6. Having taken note of the fact that both the parties have
resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them in terms of terms
and conditions contained in the compromise deed coupled with the fact
that respondent No.2, at whose instance, compliant sought to be quashed
came to be instituted, has no objection in quashing the complaint, there
appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the
petitioners for quashing of the complaint as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC.
7. Contents of the compromise sought to be quashed clearly
reveal that parties have quarreled with each other on a very trivial issues,
which otherwise they could settle themselves. Since both the parties
resolved to live peacefully and happily in near future and petitioners herein
have undertaken not to repeat such conduct in future, prayer made in the
petition for quashing of complaint deserves to be accepted. Otherwise also,
no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal complaint sought to be
quashed, is allowed to sustain. Moreover, chances of conviction of the
petitioners, in view of the aforesaid statement made on oath by the
.
respondent-complainant, are very remote and bleak.
8. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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 exercised sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29
to 29.7 of the judgment are reproduced 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".
"32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with
the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the
nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to
agree with the High Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter,
some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in
mind which compels us to take a different view.
33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of
statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some
previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not
stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz.
"respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which
could not be finalized." This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there
have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the
accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the
village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not
only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this
becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court.
.
It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a
minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution
case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the
doctor as witness who conduced medical examination, it may become difficult
to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore,
appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these
proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of
the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with
police station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order
accordingly."
9. 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 serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled
the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have 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.
10. Recently Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest 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
thepower 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 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 been 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 transactions 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.
11. 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.
12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners 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 private complaint as well as
consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that
the petitioners and the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se
.
them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
13. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties and
parties are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against
each other, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal
proceedings are allowed to continue, as such, prayer made in the petition
at hand can be accepted.
14. 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, private complaint No. 12/2021 filed by the respondent under
Section 499 read with Section 120-B of IPC as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending before the learned JMFC-4, Shimla, H.P., are
ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
15. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
19th October, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
.
