Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajinder Chauhan vs Of on 30 November, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 1159 of 2023
Decided on :30.11.2023
.
Rajinder Chauhan
...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of H.P. & ors
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakshay Parihar,
Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl.
A.G. with Ms. Leena Guleria,
Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Vivek Bharanta,
Advocate, for respondents
No. 2 and 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The petitioner has filed the present petition,
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr. P.C.) seeking
quashing of FIR No. 42 of 2023, dated 18.3.2023,
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') registered with
Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, in view of the
compromise, having been effected between the parties.
.
2. The case, as set up by the petitioner, in the
petition, is that FIR in question was registered with
Police Station, Rohru, at the instance of respondent No.
of
3, on the allegations of rash and negligent driving.
3. After registration of the FIR, criminal machinery
rt
swung into motion. After investigation, the police has
investigated the matter and submitted the report under
Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., which is pending adjudication,
before the Court of learned ACJM, Rohru, District
Shimla, in case No. 39 of 2023, titled as, 'State versus
Rajinder Chauhan'.
4. According to the petitioner, the parties, i.e.
petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 are residents of
the same area, as such, with the intervention of the
respectables of the society and in order to maintain
their future relations, the matter has been compromised
between the parties. The terms and conditions of the
compromise have been reduced into writing, which bear
signatures of the parties.
5. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the
.
present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, has
been made.
6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1, has filed
of
the status report disclosing therein about the manner,
in which the FIR has been lodged and the manner in
rt
which the police has conducted the investigation.
7. Respondents No. 2 and 3, who are none other
than the complainant and injured, have appeared
before this Court and made statements on oath,
mentioning the manner, in which, FIR in question has
been registered, on the statement of respondent No. 3.
They have also stated, on oath, that the matter has
been compromised between the parties, as, they are
residents of the same area and want to live peacefully
in future. They have also stated that they have no
objection in case, the present petition is allowed and the
FIR in question is quashed. The terms and conditions
of the compromise have been reduced into writing,
which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2 and
bears the signatures of the parties.
8. Similar type of statement has been made by the
.
petitioner.
9. Heard.
10. Since, the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and
of
3 are residents of the same area and they have entered
into the compromise, as, they want to live peacefully in
rt
the society, then, acceptance of the petition will not only
save the relationship of the parties, but, will also save
the precious time of the police, which the Police will
devote in investigation of the other serious cases.
11. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace
and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the
lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, have
compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question,
lodged by respondent No. 3, would certainly amount to
abuse of the process of law.
12. Considering all these facts, the present petition
is allowed and FIR No. 42 of 2023, dated 18.3.2023,
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, as well as
the resultant proceedings thereto, pending before the
learned trial Court in case No. 39 of 2023, titled as,
.
'State versus Rajinder Chauhan' are quashed.
13. The statements, so recorded, before this Court,
be read as part of the judgment.
of
14. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
rt
stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
November 30, 2023
Kalpana
