Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 135 (HP)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.114/2019, dated 29.06.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 324,341, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No.4 to 6. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of husband of respondent No.4, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the society, they have compromised the matter with respondents No.4 to 6. 6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-2. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3/State have filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of husband of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. Husband of respondent No.4, who is now no more on the land of living, has put the criminal machinery into motion. However, respondents No.4 to 6, who are wife, mother and sister of the complainant, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, they have entered into the compromise with the petitioners, out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. However, respondents No.4 to 6, who are wife, mother and sister of the complainant, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, they have entered into the compromise with the petitioners, out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. They have also admitted their signatures/thumb impressions, on Annexure P-2. They, in unequivocal terms, have deposed that they have no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by the husband of respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, however, he is now no more on the land of living. His legal representatives, i.e., wife, mother and sister, when appeared before this Court, they have exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 13. Once, the legal representatives of the complainant, have exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 14. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 15. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition, would also give another opportunity to the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.4 to 6 to live peacefully in the society. 16. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 17. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.114 of 2019, dated 29.06.2019 registered with Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 324, 341, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.