Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 15830 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 28 October, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

( 2024:HHC:10435 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1005 of 2024 Decided on : 28.10.2024

Ramesh 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. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.

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

Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

Petitioner­Ramesh 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.270/2022, dated 17.10.2022

(hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered

with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., under

Sections 326, 323, 341 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal

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

2 ( 2024:HHC:10435 )

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, Nalagarh, District Solan, 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, which are Ex. P­A. 3 ( 2024:HHC:10435 )

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 he, as well as, the petitioner

are residents of the same area, as such, in order to

maintain their cordial relations, the matter has been

settled between them, vide compromise Ex.PA. 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.

4 ( 2024:HHC:10435 )

11. Heard.

12. Admittedly, in this case, there are two accused,

including the petitioner. Respondent No.2, i.e.

complainant, has categorically stated that the matter has

been compromised only with the petitioner and he has

reserved his right to prosecute the other accused persons.

13. In such situation, the question, which arises for

determination, before this Court, is as to whether the FIR

can be quashed in parts.

14. The offences, involved in the present case, are

Sections 326, 323, 341 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra

and another versus State NCT of Delhi and another,

2017 SCC Online SC 636, has held that the FIR can be

quashed in parts. The relevant para­4 of the judgment, is

reproduced, as under:

"4. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants ­ herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants ­ herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 ­ herein only on the ground that the 5 ( 2024:HHC:10435 )

investigation against co­accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence

and 6 prima facie."

16. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has also been followed by a learned Single Judge of

Delhi High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case

No.1741 of 2021, titled as Sunil Tomar versus The

State of NCT of Delhi and another. The relevant

paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced, as under:

"9. Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be appreciated that the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to suffer based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when subsequently, all disputes have been settled between the parties. Reliance can be placed on Poonam Khanna vs. State & Ors in Crl.M.C.No. 3690/2016 Dated 30.01.2018.

10. In Lovely Salhotra and Anr. vs. State, NCT of Delhi (2017 SCC Online SC 636), in paragraph 4 and 7, it is observed and held as under:

"4. We have taken into account the fact of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellant­herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants­herein cannot be allowed 6 ( 2024:HHC:10435 )

to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the investigation against co­accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co­ accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie.

7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and quash the FIR qua the appellants­ herein."

17. In view of the above, the partial quashing is

permissible under the law.

18. Viewed thus, when the compromise has been

effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2

(complainant), then, keeping the proceedings, against the

petitioner, alive, is nothing, but, a wastage of the precious

judicial time.

19. Respondent No. 2­complainant has categorically

deposed, in his statement, that in order to maintain their

future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised

with the petitioner only.

20. In such situation, the chances are not so bright

that respondent No. 2­complainant will depose against the

petitioner.

7 ( 2024:HHC:10435 )

21. Considering all these facts, the petition is

allowed and FIR No.270/2022, dated 17.10.2022,

registered, under Sections 326, 323, 341 read with Section

34 IPC, with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.,

as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending

before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed,

qua the petitioner only.

22. The compromise deed, Ex.PA, and the

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

part of the judgment.

23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

( Virender Singh ) Judge October 28, 2024(ps)