Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Rajdeep Sharma Son vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
ON THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
.
CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO. 22 OF
2022
Between:-
1.SHRI RAJDEEP SHARMA SON
OF SHRI SANSAR CHAND,
RESIDENT OF CLARIDGE'S
RESIDENCY, UPPER BHARARI,
SHIMLA AND ALSO OF VILLAGE
JAKHAR, POST OFFICE AND
TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT
SHIMLA H.P.
2.SMT. SAKSHI RAJDEEP SHARMA
AGED 39 YEARS WIFE OF
SH.RAJDEEP SHARMA, RESIDENT
OF CLARIDGE'S RESIDENCY,
UPPER BHARARI, SHIMLA AND
ALSO OF VILLAGE JAKHAR, POST
OFFICE AND TEHSIL ROHRU,
DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI DEVASHISH KAINTHLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH PR. SECRETARY (HOME)
GOVT. OF H.P., SHIMLA HP
2.SH.SURESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI
MATTIDHAR SHARMA, VPO PANGANA,
TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI
HIMACHAL PRADESH
...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2022 20:02:22 :::CIS
2
(BY MS. SEEMA SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-
1
MR. ANUJ GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
.
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for presence of parties this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 168 of 2020 dated 24.7.2020 r to registered under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') at Police Station Sadar Shimla District Shimla HP, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2.
2 In response to petition, respondent No.2, by filing reply, has opposed the quashing of FIR on the ground that petition is based on the falsehood misrepresentation and suppression of facts with further submissions that in compromise respondent No. 2 never deliberated or agreed to withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR and subject matter of FIR has not been compromised.
3. Respondent No.2 was present in person on 17 th August, 2022 and his statement was recorded on oath wherein he has deposed as under:-
"I am complainant in present case. I am a Graduate, earning my livelihood from construction contracts in the field of building and roads. I have seen copy of mutual ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2022 20:02:22 :::CIS 3 agreement placed on record as Annexure P-2. I endorse my signatures thereon. I have signed the same out of my free will and consent. I have read clause-3 of mutual agreement, wherein it has been stated that I .
shall withdraw all complaints/cases against the First Party and others pending before any authority by appearing and making statement before any competent authority and courts for withdrawal of such cases. I endorse the same to be true and correct. The intention of aforesaid agreement was to compromise the matter before RERA only and not any other Court including FIR in reference in present petition.
I have entered into compromise and deposing in this Court out of my free will, consent and also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. Court Questions
1. Have you read mutual agreement before signing it?
Yes Sir.
2. There is reference of complaints cases pending against First Party in various authorities including Courts in para 3 of mutual agreement.
Yes Sir."
4 Paras 2 and 3 of mutual agreement read as under:-
"2. The Second Party has filed the case before Hon'ble RERA HP, an execution application, also party in appeal before the Hon'ble Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh. During the pendency of these cases the matter has been settled between the parties on the full and final payment of Rs.14,75,299/- (Fourteen Lakh seventy Five Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) inclusive of all interest, claims ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2022 20:02:22 :::CIS 4 and compensation, which has been paid vide demand draft bearing no. 00350704 dated 08.10.2021 amounting to Rs.14,75,299/-(Fourteen Lakh seventy Five Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine only) the .
receiving of which the second party hereby duly acknowledges."
3. The Second Party after receiving of the said amount hereby confirms and declared that Second party has released all his rights and interest in the property in question and the Second party shall withdraw all the complaints/cases against the First Party and others pending before any authority and make himself appear and make statements before any competent r authority and Hon'ble Courts for the withdrawal of such cases, waiver of penalties, Second party shall not file and pursue any case in this regard against the First Party or its directors or associates to which the Second Party duly agrees and confirms."
5. Though in his deposition, respondent No. 2 has submitted that intention of agreement was to compromise the matter before RERA only and not any other Court including FIR in reference in present petition. However, he has deposed on oath that he is Graduate Government Contractor and he had read the mutual agreement before signing it. He has also admitted that there is reference of complaint cases pending against First party in various authorities including Courts in paras 2 and 3 of mutual agreement.
6 After going through mutual agreement placed on record especially paras 2 and 3, referred supra, I am of considered opinion ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2022 20:02:22 :::CIS 5 that mutual agreement was to compromise all kinds of matter including the complaints and it cannot be construed that complaints in the Courts do not include the complaint filed by respondent No.2 .
for lodging FIR against the petitioners. The signing of mutual agreement, after reading it, has been admitted by respondent No.2.
7 Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I am of considered opinion that mutual agreement also includes the compromise in present case i.e. FIR which has been lodged at the instance of complainant. Mutual agreement has been acted upon and respondent No.2 has also received Rs.14,75,299/- in pursuance thereto. Therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR in reference.
8. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed as such and FIR No. 168 of 2020 dated 24.7.2020, registered against the petitioners/accused at P.S. Sadar Shimla, District Shimla H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR, criminal proceedings pending in the concerned Court are also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.
The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the concerned ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2022 20:02:22 :::CIS 6 authority shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise .
.
September 01, 2022 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2022 20:02:22 :::CIS