Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 14 November, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2024:HHC:11444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.963 of 2024
Decided on : 14.11.2024
Rajeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional
Advocate General for respondents
No.1.
Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral).
PetitionerRajeev Kumar has filed the present
petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'),
for quashing of FIR No.7/2022, dated 13.01.2022
(hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered
with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., under
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Sections 384, 341, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), as well as, the
proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be
pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter
referred to as the 'trial Court').
2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the
basis of the compromise, which has taken place between
the petitioner and respondent No.2.
3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of
respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered
against him.
4. After registration of the FIR, the police has
conducted the investigation and submitted the report
under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending
adjudication before the learned trial Court.
5. According to the petitioner, during the
pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their
future cordial relations, he has compromised the matter
with respondent No.2.
6. The terms and conditions of the compromise
have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed,
Annexure P2.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made that the FIR, in question, as well as,
proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned
trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by
allowing the petition.
8. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has
filed the status report, mentioning therein the
circumstances, 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.
9. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has
put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before
this Court and has stated that now he had entered into the
compromise with the petitioner, voluntarily, without any
influence from any person. He has also admitted his
signature on Annexure P2. He, in unequivocal terms, has
deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is
allowed, as prayed for.
10. Similar type of statement has also been made
by the petitioner, on oath.
11. Heard.
12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put
into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in
question, who initially had levelled the allegations against
the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court,
he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations.
16. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from
the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case
against the petitioners are not so bright.
17. When the parties, have buried all their
disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise
Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue
against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of
process of law.
18. The primary purpose of law is to maintain
peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the
petition, would also give another opportunity to the
petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in
the society.
19. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise,
by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the
learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in
a position to devote for the decision of some other serious
matters, pending before it.
20. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into
between the parties.
21. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.7 of 2022, dated 13.01.2022, registered
with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., under
Sections 384, 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC, as well as, the
proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned
trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
22. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the
statements of the parties, recorded today in the Court,
shall form part of the judgment.
23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
November 14, 2024(ps)
