Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karvinder Singh Jagpal vs State Of H.P. And Anr on 30 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9325 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No 690 of 2024.
.
Reserved on: 02.09.2024.
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024.
Karvinder Singh Jagpal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parikshit Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate
General for respondent No.1/State.
Mr Anirudh Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
quashing of FIR No. 109 of 2016, dated 07.10.2016, registered for
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and
506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) registered
in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan and the consequential
proceedings arising out of the FIR. It has been asserted that efforts
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9325 )
were made by the elder members of the family of the petitioner and
the informant to settle the matter amicably and resumption of the
.
marital ties between the parties. The petitioner and the informant
are residing together. One child was born to them in May 2023. The
informant does not want to proceed further in the matter because
of the compromise. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply denying the
contents of the petition. It was asserted that sufficient material has
been collected against the petitioner and there is every possibility
of recording the conviction. Therefore, it was prayed that the
present petition be dismissed.
3. Statement of the informant was recorded on 08.08.2024
in which she stated that she had entered into a compromise with
the petitioner. They are residing together and she does not want to
proceed further with the FIR lodged by her in view of the
compromise. She had no objection in case the FIR was ordered to be
quashed as per the compromise.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the records carefully.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9325 )
5. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statement
of the informant show that the parties have settled the dispute
.
amicbaly and they are residing together. Since the parties have
settled their dispute and the present petition had arisen out of
matrimonial discord; therefore, the FIR registered for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506
can be quashed as per the judgments in Gian Singh versus State,
2012 (10) SCC 303, Narender versus State of Punjab, 2014 (16) SCC
466, Vikas Singh vs. State of H.P.(2023)I DMC 335 (HP) and Sanjay
Kumar vs. State of H.P 2023 (1) Him L.R. 602 based on the
compromise.
6. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present
petition is allowed and FIR No. 109 of 2016, dated 07.102016,
registered for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC at Police Station Dharampur,
District Solan, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to the quashing of FIR,
criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-
accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also
pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9325 )
8. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this
judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of
.
Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said
authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but
if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the
High Court.
30th September, 2024
to (Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
(Nikita)
