Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sahil Khan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 16 November, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 831 of 2023
.
Date of Decision :November 16 , 2023
Sahil Khan ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents.
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
rt
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder
Zharaich, Additional Advocates General
with Ms. Leena Guleria, Dy.A.G. for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner Sahil Khan has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the CrPC'), for quashing of FIR No. 190, dated 9.7.2018, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS 2are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Nahan, District Sirmaur, .
H.P., (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in case titled as 'State of H.P. versus Sahil Khan'.
2. The relief of quashing the FIR has been sought on the ground that compromise has been effected between of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of respondent No. 3, who is rt mother of respondent No. 2, police has registered FIR No. 190, dated 9.7.2018, against him.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) CrPC, against him, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.
4. According to the petitioner, he, as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 are residents of the same area and in order to maintain cordial relations, the matter has been compromised between them. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS 3 has been annexed and relied upon by the petitioner as Annexure P-2.
.
5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition.
of
6. When put to notice, the State has filed the status report, disclosing therein about the manner, in which, the rt FIR in question has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 3 and the manner, in which, police has investigated the case and submitted report under Section 173(2) CrPC. Lastly, it has been mentioned that report under Section 173(2) CrPC has been pending before the competent Court of law, for consideration.
7. On 12.10.2023, the following order has been passed by this Court:-
"Petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 2, are present, however, the person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, is not present.
By moving application, bearing Cr.MP No. 3915 of 2023, a prayer has been made to exempt respondent No. 3, from personal appearance, before this Court, on the ground of her ailment.::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS 4
Keeping in view the factual position, as mentioned, in the application, respondent No. 3, .
Pinki wife of Shri Monu Kumar, is directed to appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib on 17th October, 2023, at 10.00 a.m. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, is directed to record the of statement of respondent No. 3, in the presence of her counsel. After recording the statement, the rt same be submitted to this Court.
List on 30th October, 2023."
8. In pursuance to the said order, respondent No. 3 has appeared before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, where, her statement has been recorded, on oath. As per the statement, respondent No. 3 has categorically stated about the compromise and stated that she does not want to proceed further with the case.
9. The respondent No. 2 is present in the Court today. She has also categorically stated about the circumstances in which FIR, in question, has been lodged by her mother, against the petitioner. According to her, her mother as well as petitioner are residents of same area and ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS 5 in order to maintain cordial relations, compromise has been effected between them. She has relied upon the .
compromise which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. On the basis of compromise, the respondent No. 2 has stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.
of
10. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, on oath.
rt
11. Heard.
12. Criminal machinery in the present case has been put into motion by respondent No. 3, who is none other than the mother of respondent No. 2. Police, after the registration of FIR, has conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC, which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. Now the person, who is stated to be the victim of crime i.e. respondent No. 2, as well as person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion i.e. respondent No. 3, have compromised the matter with the petitioner in order to maintain their cordial relations and compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.
::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS 613. The complainant (respondent No. 3) has categorically stated about the compromise and in .
unequivocal terms, she has stated that she has no objection if the petition is allowed by finishing the case against the petitioner.
14. Respondent No. 2 has also stated in unequivocal of terms with regard to the fact that due to some misunderstanding, case has been lodged by her mother rt against the petitioner. When the person, who has lodged FIR as well as the person regarding whom crime is stated to have been committed, has compromised the matter with the petitioner, then permitting the proceedings to continue before the trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. Even otherwise, offence alleged against the petitioner, does not fall within the exception of serious offence of mental depravity. When the victim has stated that the case has been got registered due to some misunderstanding, then chances of success of prosecution case, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, are not so bright. Moreover, acceptance of the petition by this Court, as prayed for, will also save the precious ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS 7 judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the adjudication .
of some other disputes, pending before it.
15. Considering all these aspects, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 190, dated 9.7.2018, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District of Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, rt which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
16. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, statements of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, recorded today, in the Court, as well as statement of respondent No. 3, recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, shall form part of the judgment.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Virender Singh) Judge.
November 16 , 2023 (PK) ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:32:37 :::CIS