Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 31 (HP)

Vinod Kumar v. State of H. P.

2023-01-07

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No.133 of 2015, dated 20.8.2015, registered at Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is averred in the petition that late Sh. Jaskaran Bir Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 2 and 3 had lodged an FIR No. 133 of 2015 against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar, Solan, H.P. After investigation, the challan was presented and the case is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Solan as Criminal Case No. 105 of 2016. 3. The FIR in question was an offshoot of a civil dispute between late Sh. Jaskaran Bir Singh and petitioner with respect to performance of an agreement to sell executed between them. A civil suit No. 73 of 2018 had also been filed arising out of the subject matter of the aforesaid agreement. Sh. Jaskaran Bir Singh died during the pendency of civil suit. After his death, respondents No. 2 and 3 as also the son of late Sh. Jaskaran Bir Singh, named Jasnoor Sandhu have settled all the disputes with the petitioner and compromise deed has been executed, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, FIR No. 133 of 2015 and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are sought to be quashed. 4. On 20.12.2022, respondent No.2 and petitioner were present in the Court and their separate statements were recorded on oath. Both of them verified the factum of having arrived at a mutual settlement. They further verified the terms of compromise deed, Annexure P-3. 5. On 05.01.2023, respondent No.3 Ms. Hargun Sandhu and Jasnoor Sandhu, son of late Sh. Jaskaran Bir Singh also presented themselves before the Court and made a statement on oath to the effect that their all disputes with petitioner have been settled and now they have no objection in case the FIR No. 133 of 2015 and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 6. I have gone through the terms of the compromise, Annexure P-3. There is nothing in the said compromise which can be said to be unlawful. 7. The parties have come-forward to put an end to long standing dispute inter se them. 6. I have gone through the terms of the compromise, Annexure P-3. There is nothing in the said compromise which can be said to be unlawful. 7. The parties have come-forward to put an end to long standing dispute inter se them. It is admitted by both the sides that the dispute had arisen in respect of the performance of an agreement to sell executed between the petitioner and late Sh. Jaskaran Bir Singh. The FIR in question was also an offshoot arising from the civil dispute between the parties. Thus, the nature of dispute between the parties was more or less private in nature and had no repercussions whatsoever on the interest of the society at large. 8. To maintain peace and harmony, is the objective of every civilized society. Every step in such direction should be welcomed. In the instant case also, the parties have settled the matter in order to live in peace and harmony in future. Keeping in view the facts of the case, no prejudice shall be caused to either of the parties or to society at large, in case the prayer made in the petition is granted. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No.133 of 2015, dated 20.8.2015, registered at Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom i.e. Criminal Case No. 105 of 2016 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. are ordered to be quashed in the interest of justice. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.