Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 415 (HP)

Abhinandan Jamwal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-20

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —In this writ petition, the following prayer has been made. (a) Issue a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to withdraw the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, Kangra, H.P. in case No.24/II/16 titled as State vs. Abhinandan Jamwal as per Annexure P2, P3 & P4 and subsequently quashing all consequential proceedings thereto and FIR No.212/2015 dated 4.11.2015 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Dharamshala, Kangra, H.P. (Annexure P-1) . 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 420 IPC vide FIR (Annexure P-1) , in Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra. He seems to have made correspondence with the Office of Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh regarding withdrawal of the criminal proceedings initiated against him at the instance of Shri Girjesh Chauhan, respondent No.5 herein. The Chief Minister''s Office seems to have referred the matter to District Attorney Kangra at Dharamshala for needful. 3. The complaint is that District Attorney, respondent No.4 has not taken any action as yet in this matter. This being the grouse of the petitioner, no such relief could have been sought by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. At the most, a direction to the respondents to expedite further proceedings in the application made for seeking withdrawal of the prosecution launched against him could have only been sought. 4. It is significant to note that the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC can be compounded by the person, who has been cheated (in the present case respondent No.5) of course with the permission of the Court under sub-section 2 of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that the petition, Cr. MMO No. 376 of 2016, previously filed in this Court for quashing the FIR was disposed of vide order dated 17.8.2017 by leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all legal questions in the trial Court at an appropriate stage. This petition as such is not maintainable. The petitioner may pursue the remedy in accordance with law including withdrawal of the prosecution launched against him at the instance of respondent No.5. This Court cannot direct either respondent No.5 or for that matter the State to proceed in a particular manner and particular fashion in the matter of compounding of offence or withdrawal of pending proceedings against him. 5. This Court cannot direct either respondent No.5 or for that matter the State to proceed in a particular manner and particular fashion in the matter of compounding of offence or withdrawal of pending proceedings against him. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above observations. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of.