CRMMO/288/2015 on 29 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 288 of 2015. Date of Decision : 29th December, 2015. Ravinder Kumar and another …..Petitioners.

Versus State of H.P. and another …..Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? . For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate. Petitioners are in person. For respondent No.1: Mr. R.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2: Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. Respondent No.2/Complainant in person. ______________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral) This petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners-accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for the quashing of FIR No.15 of 2009 of 03.04.2009 registered at Police Station, Chintpurani, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh wherein the petitioners herein are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides a prayer has been made therein that consequential criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner/accused and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.III, Amb be also quashed and set aside.

2. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, the respondent No.2 has in his statement recorded on oath, before this Court duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, disclosed therein in tandem with the compromise entered inter se him and the accused/petitioner, of his having amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner herein. He has proceeded to record in his statement on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by him of his having no objection in case the instant petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 15 of 2009 of 03.04.2009 registered at police station, Chintpurani, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, is accepted. Given the statement of respondent No.2 besides, given the compromise arrived at inter se the petitioners/accused and respondents No.2, this Court accepts the instant petition. Consequently, with the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners herein and respondents No.2 comprised in Annexure P-2 constrains, it to hence conclude for securing the ends of justice besides for precluding the petitioners/accused from being subjected to the harassment and humiliation of facing trial even when respondent No.2 has portrayed in the compromise deed, besides in his statement on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, to not proceed to prosecute the accused/petitioners herein, of the compromise/settlement arrived at inter se respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, necessitating reverence by this Court. Moreover, what further prods this Court to rever the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners and respondent No.2 is comprised in the factum of with respondent No.2 being uninterested in prosecuting the accused, resultantly with any chance of the petitioners/accused suffering any conviction being rendered bleak/remote. In aftermath , this Court is prodded to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners and respondent No.2. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.15 of 2009 of 03.04.2009 wherein the petitioners herein are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Chintpurani, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh is quashed. In sequel, the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Court No.3, Amb, District Una, H.P. are also quashed and set aside. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. (Sureshwar Thakur) 29th December, 2015 Judge.

(jai