Sudesh Devi @ Sudesh Kumari & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 23 December, 2024

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sudesh Devi @ Sudesh Kumari & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 23 December, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

                               1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                   Cr. MMO No. 1265 of 2024

                                        Decided on : 23.12.2024

      Sudesh Devi @ Sudesh Kumari & ors.

                                            ...Petitioners


                                Versus

      State of H.P. & anr.
                                      ...Respondents
      ___________________________________________
      Coram
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
      Whether approved for reporting?
      ________________________________________________

     For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.

     For the Respondents :Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr.
                          Mohinder           Zharaick,
                          Additional        Advocates
                          General with Mr. Rohit
                          Sharma,    Dy.    A.G.,  for
                          respondent No. 1.

                                Ms. Neha Negi, 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for

quashing of FIR No. 82 of 2024, dated 20.5.2024,
2

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’),

registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341,

504, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code

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

Station, Majra District Sirmour, H.P., as well as, the

resultant proceedings thereto.

2. After registration of the FIR, on statement of

respondent No. 2, criminal machinery swung into

motion. According to the petitioners they have

compromised the matter at the stage of investigation

only, in terms of compromise, Ext. PA, as the parties

belong to the same village and closely related to each

other.

3. 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.

4. When put to notice, respondents-State has

filed status report, disclosing therein the factual

position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in
3

question has been registered and criminal machinery

swung into motion.

5. It is the further case of respondents-

State that investigation in the present case is complete

and the final report is being prepared.

6. The person, who has put criminal machinery

into motion, by making statement under Section 154

Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2 has

appeared before this Court and 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 residents of the same village

and closely related to each other.

7. Respondent No. 2 has further deposed that

similarly, petitioner No. 1 Sudesh Devi had also lodged

FIR No. 83 of 2024, dated 20.5.2024, against him and

seven others, with Police Station, Majra, District

Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
4

354, 452 and 506 IPC. He has deposed that the

aforementioned FIRs have been lodged due to some

mis-understanding, which has now been cleared.

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 joint statement has also been

made by the petitioners.

10. Heard.

11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has

categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the

compromise has been effected between the parties, as

they are closely related to each other.

12. In view of the compromise deed, Ext. PA,

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, proceedings

resultant thereto, are quashed and the present petition

is allowed.

5

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 Ext. PA, 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

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 will also save

the precious judicial time of the Court, where final

report will be submitted, as the said Court will be in a

position to devote such time, for deciding some other

serious disputes, pending before it.
6

16. Considering all these facts, the present

petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as,

proceedings consequent thereto, are quashed.

17. The statements of the parties and the

compromise, Ext. PA, be read as part of the judgment.

18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid

terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of.

(Virender Singh)
Judge

December 23, 2024
Kalpana