Dinesh Kumar And Another vs State Of H.P & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 18386 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dinesh Kumar And Another vs State Of H.P & Another on 24 November, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 922 of 2023 Reserved on: 06.11.2023 Date of Decision: 24.11.2023 Dinesh Kumar and another ... Petitioners Versus

.

State of H.P & another ....Respondents

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vanshaj Azad, Advocate.

of For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge rt

The informant/victim appeared before the Court and

made a statement that he had entered into a compromise with

the present petitioners voluntarily without any influence or

monetary consideration. In view of the compromise, he does not

want to pursue the FIR lodged by him against the petitioners. He

has no objection, in case, FIR No. 97 of 2018 dated 13.07.2018 is

ordered to be quashed.

2. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General

for respondent no. 1 submitted that since the matter is at the

final stage; therefore, the permission should not be granted.

This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down in Shaikh

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Shaukat and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (18.01.2023

- MHOR): MANU/MHOR/3565/2023 that the High Court has the

power to permit the quashing of the proceedings under its

inherent power even after the conviction. It was observed:

.

"7. From a plain reading of this judgement, it is clear that powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C can be exercised in

post-conviction matters when an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. In the instant case, as noted above, it is stated that the appeal filed by the

of Applicants is pending before the Sessions Court, Aurangabad. Hence, there is no embargo in exercising power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C to quash present proceedings at post-conviction stage, particularly rt considering the fact that the proceedings are emanating from the matrimonial dispute."

3. In the present case, there is no allegation that the

compromise was not lawful. The offences punishable under

Section 324, 323 and 506 IPC are compoundable under Section

320 of Cr.P.C. The only impediment is Section 25 of the Arms Act

because a Khukhri was used for the commission of the offence.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence and that the matter

has been compromised between the parties voluntarily,

permission is granted and the FIR No.97 of 2018 dated

13.07.2018 and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR

are ordered to be quashed.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 24th November 2023 (saurav pathania)