Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunita Rani vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 21 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No.1294/2024.
Date of Decision: 21st December, 2024.
Sunita Rani .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Addl. Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 a prayer has
been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No.204/20 dated 09.11.2020 under Sections 292, 504 and 201
of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Bhoranj,
Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.
2. The averments contained in the petition, which is duly
supported by an affidavit reveals that on 09.11.2020
complainant/respondent No.2 had got a FIR registered against
the present petitioner under Sections 292, 504 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, during the pendency of
proceedings the dispute inter se parties has been settled
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
amicably vide compromise deed dated 16.12.2024, copy
whereof is appended along with the present petition as
Annexure P-2.
3. Statements of complainant/respondent No.2 and
petitioner stand recorded. According to the
complainant/respondent No.2, the dispute inter se parties
stands amicably settled between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record carefully.
5. This Court sees no impediment in quashing the FIR in
issue, as the dispute inter se the parties stands amicably
resolved.
6. From a perusal of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that insofar as Sections
201 and 292 of the IPC, are concerned, the same are not
compoundable.
7. In this respect, attention of this Court has been drawn
to a case titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and another reported as (2014) 6 Supreme Court
Cases, 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically laid
down that the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not
compoundable, where the parties have amicably settled the
matter inter se them. However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution, in cases where settlement is arrived
3
at. The guiding factors being securing the ends of justice or to
prevent an abuse of the process of any Court.
8. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias
Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State
of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the
broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are
not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into
compromise permitting the proceedings in pursuance to the
aforesaid FIR sought to be quashed to continue would only
result into an abuse of process and the same would not secure
the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.204/20
dated 09.11.2020 under Sections 292, 504 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Bhoranj, Tehsil
Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. as well as consequent
proceedings pending before the learned trial Court, are
quashed.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so
also the pending application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
21st December, 2024
(Gaurav Rawat)
[ad_1]
Source link