Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 21.12.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 21 December, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2024:HHC:15703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.492 of 2023
Decided on : 21.12.2024
Kaushalya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Somesh Sharma,
Advocate, vice Mr. Karun Negi,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,
Additional Advocate General
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as ‘CrPC‘), for quashing of FIR No.95/2022,
dated 02.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2024:HHC:15703
question), registered with Police Station Dharampur,
District Solan, H.P., under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471
and 120B 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
Judicial Magistrate First Class, court No.II, Solan, 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, effected between the parties.
3. As per factual position, asserted in the petition,
respondents No.2 to 4 have filed one complaint, on
21.05.2022, before the SHO, Police Station Dharampur,
District Solan, H.P. to the effect that they, along with Sh.
Sant Ram, have acquired the ancestral land at Village
Udaypur.
4. As per the petitioners, the said Sant Ram is
illiterate and mentally retarded person and as such, he
could not have executed sale deed, qua his share in the
land in question, in favour of the petitioners.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that in the said
complaint, it has been mentioned that the petitioners have
3 2024:HHC:15703
misrepresented the facts, before the authorities concerned
and could get the land transferred in their names, by way
of sale deed. As per complaint, the complainants came to
know that about the petitioners that they have got
transferred the land of Sant Ram, in their name, in the
month of October, 2021, by way of registered sale deed,
with the Office of Sub-Registrar, Solan.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that as
per the said complaint, the sale consideration of Rs.26 lacs
had been paid through two cheques and Rs.4 lacs were
paid in cash. The market value, as per the complaint, is
more than Rs.2 crores. No consideration amount has been
paid, as is clear from the saving account of Sant Ram.
7. As per assertions, in the complaint, the
petitioners have got opened the saving account of Sant
Ram in the UCO Bank and the same bank account was
being operated by them, by depositing the amount in the
account of Sant Ram and transferring the same in their
own accounts.
8. As per the complaint, the mutation, on the
basis of the sale deed, has wrongly been sanctioned and as
4 2024:HHC:15703
such, on the basis of the said complaint, FIR, in question,
has been registered against the petitioners.
9. As per the case of the petitioners, after
registration of FIR, the police has investigated the matter
and the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, has
been submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the
learned trial Court.
10. According to the petitioners, during the
pendency of proceedings, before the learned trial Court, the
matter has been compromised between the petitioners and
respondents No.2 to 4. The compromise, executed, between
the parties, has been placed on record, as Ex.PA.
11. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer
has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by
quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings
resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court.
12. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has
filed the reply, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in
which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the
instance of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in
5 2024:HHC:15703
which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police,
in this case.
13. The petitioners have impleaded the
complainant, as respondent No.4. Respondents No.2 and 3
have also been impleaded, in this case, as party
respondents, as, they, along with respondent No.4, have
moved complaint, before the SHO, Police Station
Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.
14. Today i.e. on 21.12.2024, respondent No.4-
complainant, who has lodged the FIR, in question,
appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that due
to some misunderstanding, on the basis of his statement,
FIR, in question, has been registered, against the
petitioners. He has also deposed that the matter has been
compromised, between the parties, vide compromise Ex.PA.
15. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also
shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the
compromise with the petitioners, by stating that he has
entered into the compromise with the petitioners
voluntarily and without any influence from any person.
6 2024:HHC:15703
16. In addition to this, respondent No.4 has made
no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and
the FIR, in question, as well as, the resultant proceedings,
thereto, are quashed.
17. The petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2
and 3, have also made similar statements, on oath.
18. Heard.
19. In this case, the criminal machinery was put
into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in
question, against the petitioners, however, when, appeared
before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioners from
the allegations, as levelled, in this case.
20. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners
from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that the matter
has been compromised between them, in such situation,
the chances of success of prosecution case, against the
petitioners, are not so bright.
21. When, the parties, who admittedly are the
residents of the same area, have buried all their disputes,
7 2024:HHC:15703
by compromising the matter, vide compromise Ex.PA, then,
permitting the investigation to continue, would be nothing,
but, abuse of the process of law.
22. 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
petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 to 4 to live
peacefully in the society.
23. 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.
24. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Ex.PA, entered into
between the parties, as, the petitioners and respondents
No.2 to 4, are residents of the same area.
25. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.95/2022, dated 02.06.2022, registered
with Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., under
Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC, as well
8 2024:HHC:15703
as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the
learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
26. The compromise, Ex.PA, and the statements of
the parties, shall form part of the judgment.
27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
December 21, 2024
(Gaurav Thakur)
[ad_1]
Source link