Decided On : 13.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 17270 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 13.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 13 November, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

                                           1                             2024:HHC:11301



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 CrMMO No. : 1277 of 2023
                                                 Decided on :            13.11.2024


Rakesh Kumar and another                                              ...Petitioners

                                          Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another                                 ...Respondents


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



For the petitioners:                Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
                     General, for respondent No. 1.

                                    Mr. Anil Kapoor,                  Advocate,     for
                                    respondent No. 2.


Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

Petitioners-Rakesh Kumar and Nisha Devi have

filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), for

quashing FIR No. 54 of 2018, dated 7th October, 2018,

registered under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 of the

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

2 2024:HHC:11301

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'),

with Police Station Brow, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu,

H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending

before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Ani, District Kullu, H.P.

2. According to the petitioners, the FIR in question

has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2-

Sushmita Sain. After the registration of the FIR, the police

machinery swung into motion. After the completion of the

investigation, the report, under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC

has been filed, in the learned trial Court.

3. It is their further case that now, with the

intervention of the family, relatives and friends, the matter

has been compromised. The compromise, which is

annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2, is stated to

have been effected, between the parties, in order to ensure

harmonious relations between them.

4. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer

has been made to quash the FIR in question, as well as,

the proceedings resultant thereto.

3 2024:HHC:11301

5. On notice, the police has filed the status report,

in which, the factual position, regarding the manner, in

which, the FIR in question has been registered and the

investigation has been conducted, has been mentioned.

6. Complainant-respondent No 2 appeared before

the Court on 13th March, 2024, and has stated, on oath,

that the FIR in question was got registered by her in undue

haste and now, at the insistence of family, relatives and

friends, she does not intend to pursue the FIR in question

and the proceedings resultant thereto, in order to ensure

harmonious relations amongst themselves. She has also

deposed that she has entered into the compromise

(Annexure P-2) voluntarily, without any influence, threat or

promise of any sort between the parties.

7. Similar type of statement has also been made

by the petitioners.

8. On 25th June, 2024, when the case was listed

before the Hon'ble Court, it has been observed that the

husband of the complainant, namely Prakash Chand, was

also one of the victims and, therefore, he was ordered to be

produced before the Court for making the statement.

4 2024:HHC:11301

9. In pursuance of the said order, said Prakash

Chand appeared before the Court on 9 th July, 2024, and

stated, on oath, that the accused had not shown any knife

to him or had not intimidated him.

10. Considering the fact that the petitioners and

respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter, in terms

of the compromise (Annexure P-2), it is a fit case, where

the powers, under Section 482 CrPC, are liable to be

exercised, as permitting the proceedings to remain alive,

would amount to abuse of the process of law.

11. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain

peace and harmony in the subject. When the complainant

has categorically deposed, on oath, that she does not want

to pursue the FIR in question, then, this Court is of the

considered view that the prayer, so made in the petition, is

liable to be accepted.

12. Moreover, acceptance of the compromise would

also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial

Court, which could be devoted for deciding some other

serious matters, pending in the said Court.

5 2024:HHC:11301

13. Honouring the efforts made by the family,

relatives and friends of the parties, which resulted into the

compromise, between the petitioners and respondent No.

2, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 54 of 2018, dated 7th

October, 2018, registered under Sections 452, 323, 506

and 34 IPC, with Police Station Brow, Tehsil Nirmand,

District Kullu, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant

thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered

to be quashed.

14. The compromise (Annexure P-2) and the

statements of the parties, made in the Court, shall form

part of the judgment.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

( Virender Singh ) Judge November 13, 2024 ( rajni )