Rambhaj & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 456 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rambhaj & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 8 January, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1303 of 2023 Decided on : 08.01.2024

.

Rambhaj & Others ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ...Respondents

Coram

of The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner rt : Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for

respondents No.1.

Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing of FIR No.180/2023,

dated 25th August, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR,

in question), registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib,

District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

427 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter

referred to as the 'IPC').

.

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the

basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioners, on the statement

of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been

of registered against them.

4. After registration of the FIR, the police has rt conducted the investigation and the report under Section

173(2) Cr.PC, is ready for being filed before the competent

Court of law.

5. According to the petitioners, during the

pendency of the investigation, the matter has been

compromised, in order to maintain their future cordial

relations and to live peacefully in the society.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise

have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with

the petition, as Annexure P­2.

7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made that the FIR, in question, may kindly be

quashed, by allowing the petition.

8. When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has

filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in

.

which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the

instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in

which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police,

in this case.

of

9. The person, who has put the criminal

machinery into motion, has been impleaded as respondent rt No.2.

10. Respondent No.2, today, appeared before this

Court, and deposed that due to some confusion, he had

lodged the FIR, in question, in which, the police has

conducted the investigation and is about to file the report

under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, before the competent Court of

law. He has also deposed that he, as well as, the

petitioners are neighbours, as such, in order to maintain

their future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the

society, he has compromised the matter with the

petitioners, vide compromise Annexure P­2.

11. In addition to this, respondent No.2, has

shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the

compromise with the petitioners, by stating that

compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent

.

and without any pressure upon him.

12. Similar type of the statement has been made by

the petitioners, on oath.

13. Heard.

of

14. The petitioners and respondents No.2 are stated

to be neighbours and due to some confusion, respondent rt No.2, had lodged the FIR, in question, in which, the police

has conducted the investigation and about to submit the

report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, before learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib.

15. Primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace

and harmony in the society. When, the person, who, at

one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into

motion, by lodging the FIR, in question, had settled the

matter with the petitioners, then, permitting the

proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court,

would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law.

16. Even otherwise, the acceptance of the

compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial

time of the Court, in which the Police will file the final

report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which, the Court will

.

be in a position to devote for the decision of some other

serious matters, pending before it.

17. Considering the above facts, this Court is

satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, which

of had taken place between the petitioners and respondent

No.2. rt

18. Considering all these facts, the petition is

allowed and FIR No.180/2023, dated 25.08.2023,

registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District

Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and

34 IPC, is ordered to be quashed.

19. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the

statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment.

20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

                                            ( Virender Singh )
    January 08, 2024(ps)                          Judge