21.12.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 21 December, 2024

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 21.12.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 21 December, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

                                           1                          2024:HHC:15553



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 CrMMO No. : 1199 of 2024
                                                 Decided on :            21.12.2024


Dhani Ram and others                                                  ...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. Rajat Thakur, Advocate.

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

                                    Mr. Dikken Thakur, Advocate, for
                                    respondent No. 2.


Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing FIR

No. 12 of 2020, dated 13th February, 2020 (hereinafter

1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2024:HHC:15553

referred to as ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections

341, 323, 504, 506, 451, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘), with Police

Station Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the

proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District

Solan, H.P.

2. According to the petitioners, on 13th February,

2020, the FIR in question has been lodged against the

petitioners. 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. As per the petitioners, they are the respectable

citizens of this country, having deep roots in the society.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the parties

to the lis have successfully reached at an amicable

settlement, with the intervention of the friends.

5. According to them, the FIR in question is an

outcome of misunderstanding and miscommunication and

keeping the said FIR pending, would not serve any useful
3 2024:HHC:15553

purpose, as such, they have made a compromise deed for

settling the dispute, on 11 th September, 2024 (Annexure P-

2).

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Complainant-respondent No 2 appeared before

this Court on 16th December, 2024, and has stated, on

oath, that the FIR in question was got registered by him,

due to some misunderstanding and since, he and the

petitioners are closely related to each other, as such, with

the intervention of the respectables of the society, the

matter has now been compromised between them.

9. Complainant-respondent No. 2 has also

deposed that he has entered into the compromise

(Annexure P-2) with his free will and consent and without

any pressure. According to him, he has no objection, in
4 2024:HHC:15553

case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in

question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending

before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

10. Similar type of statements have also been made

by the petitioners.

11. 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 528 of the BNSS, are liable to be

exercised, as permitting the proceedings to remain alive,

would amount to abuse of the process of law.

12. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain

peace and harmony in the society. When the complainant

has categorically deposed, on oath, that he has no

objection, in case, the FIR in question is quashed, then,

this Court is of the considered view that the prayer, so

made in the petition, is liable to be accepted.

13. 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 before the said Court.

5 2024:HHC:15553

14. Honouring the efforts made by the friends of the

parties and the respectables of the society, which resulted

into the compromise, between the petitioners and

respondent No. 2, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 12 of

2020, dated 13th February, 2020, registered under Sections

341, 323, 504, 506, 451, 147 and 149 IPC, with Police

Station Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the

proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned

trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

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

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

part of the judgment.

16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

( Virender Singh )
Judge
December 21, 2024
( rajni )