Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sourav Alias Saurabh Chaudhary vs State Of H.P. And Anr on 31 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6106 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No 381 of 2024.
.
Reserved on: 25.07.2024.
Date of Decision: 31.07.2024.
Sourav alias Saurabh Chaudhary ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 437 of 2021, dated 17.11.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2024 03:09:44 :::CISNeutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6106 )
2. It has been asserted that the parties have settled the matter with the intervention of the respectable persons of the .
locality. They want to maintain cordial relations with each other.
The respondents have no objection in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise.
3. The statements of the informant Prem Lata and injured Daulat Ram were recorded on 25.06.2024 in which they stated that they had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. They do not want to proceed further with the FIR and they had no objection in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR is ordered to be quashed.
4. I have heard Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and Mr Shubham Sood, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.
5. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily without influence from any person and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise.
::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2024 03:09:44 :::CISNeutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6106 )
6. Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State submitted that the offence is against the .
society and the permission should not be granted to compound the offence. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. Mr. Shubham Sood, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that the informant has entered into a compromise and they have no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise.r
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. This Court had quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC in Sushant vs. State of H.P. 2023 HLC 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwinder Singh vs. Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 and others based on the compromise between the parties. These judgments are binding on this Court.
10. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 437 of 2021, dated 17.11.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act at Police ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2024 03:09:44 :::CIS Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6106 ) Station Sadar, District Una, H.P. is quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against .
the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
11. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
12. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 31st July, 2024 (Nikita) ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2024 03:09:44 :::CIS