Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prithvi Singh & 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. 1266 of 2024
Decided on : 23.12.2024
Prithvi Singh & 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. Ajay Kumar Dhiman and
Ms. Neha Negi, 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.
Mr. Arun Kumar, 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
2
quashing of FIR No. 83 of 2024, dated 20.5.2024,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’),
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 354,
201 and 506 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, stated to be pending before the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’).
2. After registration of the FIR, on statement of
respondent No. 2, criminal machinery swung into
motion. After investigation, the police has submitted
its report under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C., which is
pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.
3. It is also the case of the parties that now the
matter has been compromised, in pursuance of
compromise, Ext. PA, as the parties belong to the
same village and closely related to each other.
3
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, respondents-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 respondents-
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 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, she 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 her and the
4
petitioners, as they are residents of the same village
and closely related to each other.
8. Respondent No. 2 has further deposed that
similarly, petitioner No. 1 Prithvi Singh had also
lodged FIR No. 82 of 2024, dated 20.5.2024, against
her and eight others, with Police Station, Majra,
District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. She has deposed that
the aforementioned FIRs have been lodged due to some
mis-understanding, which has now been cleared.
9. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal
terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed
further with the matter.
10. Similar type of joint statement has been made
by the petitioners also.
11. Heard.
12. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has
categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that
the compromise has been effected between the parties,
as they are closely related to each other.
5
13. 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, pending before the learned trial
Court, are quashed and the present petition is
allowed.
14. 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.
15. 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
6
FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would
certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.
16. Acceptance of the compromise will also save
the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as,
the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote
such time, for deciding some other serious disputes,
pending before it.
17. 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.
18. The statements of the parties and the
compromise, Ext. PA, be read as part of the judgment.
19. 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
[ad_1]
Source link