Sunita Kashyap And Another vs State Of H.P And Another on 17 August, 2023

[Cites 10, Cited by 14]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sunita Kashyap And Another vs State Of H.P And Another on 17 August, 2023

Bench: Virender Singh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                                       Cr.MMO No. 819 of 2023
                                                     Decided on: 17th August, 2023




                                                                                       .

        Sunita Kashyap and another                                              .......Petitioners.

                                                     Versus





        State of H.P and another                                                 ...Respondents

        Coram




                                                           of
        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
        Whether approved for reporting?1
        For the petitioners:     rt                 Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
        For the respondents:                        Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G.
                                                    and Ms. Leena Guleria, Dy. A.G

                                                    for respondent No.1.

                                                    Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for
                                                    respondent No.2.



        Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'), with a prayer to quash FIR No. 212 of 2019 dated 05.10.2019 under Sections 342, 323, 355, 500, 504, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') registered with Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, resultant proceedings, which are stated to be pending before the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 2

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court').

2. The proceedings are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court in the shape of criminal case No. 46 of 2021 titled as State of H.P vs. Sunita Kashyap and another.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that on the of statement of respondent No.2, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioners. After the registration of FIR, rt the police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., upon which, learned trial Court has taken cognizance.

4. According to the petitioners, now the matter has been settled between the parties in order to maintain cordial relations in the future. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which is placed on record as Annexure P-3.

5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition.

6. When put to notice, the State, although has not filed reply, but opposed the prayer on the ground that the petition sans merit and may kindly be dismissed.

::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 3

7. Today, respondent No.2, who at one point of time, has lodged the FIR against the petitioners has appeared .

before the Court and made a statement on oath, in which, she has deposed, in unequivocal terms, that in order to maintain the cordial relations, she has compromised the matter with the petitioners. According to her, the terms and of conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. On the basis rt of such compromise, it has been stated by respondent No.2 that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed.

8. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioners in their joint statement recorded today.

9. The main object of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the parties to the FIR i.e. respondent No.2, as well as, petitioners have compromised the matter, then, their efforts should be recognized by the Court.

10. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties, then, the chances of success of the case of the prosecution are not so bright.

11. Moreover, acceptance of compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court and ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 4 the said time could be utilized by the learned trial Court to decide some other serious matters.

12. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed.

FIR No. 212 of 2019 dated 05.10.2019 under Sections 342, 323, 355, 500, 504, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered with Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, of resultant proceedings, which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 46 of 2021, titled as rt State of H.P. vs. Sunita Kashyap and another, are ordered to be quashed.

13. The compromise, as well as, statement of the parties, recorded today in the Court, shall form part of this order.

14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

    August 17, 2023                                    ( Virender Singh )
      (naveen)                                              Judge




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court