Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chaman Lal & Anr vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 7 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 292 of 2025
Decided on : 7.5.2025
Chaman Lal & anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & anr.
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Thakur,
Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl.
A.G., for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shyam Chauhan,
Advocate, for respondent No.
2.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The petitioners have filed the present petition,
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 102 of 2023, dated
6.12.2023, (hereinafter referred to as 'the FIR in
question'), registered under Sections 380, 504, 506
and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as 'the IPC') with Police Station, Arki, District
Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant
thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District
Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court').
2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the
ground that due to some mis-understanding between
the petitioners, and respondent No. 2, FIR in question
has been lodged against the petitioners. After
registration of the FIR, Police has conducted
investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet
against the petitioners, which is stated to be pending
in the learned trial Court.
3. It is also the case of the parties that now, the
matter has been compromised, in pursuance of
compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are related
to each other and want to maintain their cordial
relations, in future.
4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the
present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as
well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.
5. When put to notice, respondent-State has
filed status report, disclosing therein the factual
position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in
question has been registered and criminal machinery
swung into motion.
6. It is the further case of respondent-
State that after completion of investigation, report
under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which
is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.
7. The person, who had put criminal machinery
into motion, by making statement under Section 154
Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2, has
made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in
which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum
of the compromise, which has been effected, between
the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations
between him, and the petitioners, as they are related
to each other.
8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal
terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed
further with the matter.
9. Similar type of statements have also been
made by the petitioners, on oath.
10. Heard.
11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has
categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the
compromise has been effected between the parties, in
order to maintain their cordial relations, in future.
12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2,
which bears the signatures of petitioners, and
respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to
proceed further with the case and has no objection, in
case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial
Court, are quashed and the present petition is
allowed.
13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the
dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the
compromise, which has been entered into between the
parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2,
should be honoured by this Court, as no useful
purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings
alive.
14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain
peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis,
i.e. petitioners, and respondent No. 2, have buried
all their disputes and compromised the matter, then,
the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising
out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2,
would certainly amount to abuse of the process of
law.
15. Acceptance of the compromise would also save
the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as,
the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote
such time, for deciding some other serious disputes,
pending before it.
16. Considering all these facts, the present
petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as,
proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication
before the learned trial Court, are quashed.
17. The statements of the parties and the
compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the
judgment.
18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
May 7, 2025
Kalpana
