Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 19 (HP)

Babu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.81/2021, dated 23.11.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 325, 147, 149 and 506 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, Rajgarh District Sirmaur, 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 respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.2, 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, they have compromised the matter with respondent No.2. 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, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that he had entered into the compromise with the petitioners, voluntarily, without any influence from any person. He has also admitted his thumb impression on the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. He has also admitted his thumb impression on the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 13. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are not the stranger, but, respondent No.2 is father of petitioners No.1 and 2, husband of petitioner No.3 and father-in-law of petitioners No.4 and 5. Considering the said relationship, this Court is of the view that when, the parties to the lis have buried all the disputes with a pious motive to live together peacefully, then, their attempt must be honoured by the Court, by accepting the petition. 14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 15. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 16. 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, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 17. 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. 18. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 19. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.81 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021, registered with Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 325, 147, 149 and 506 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 20. 19. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.81 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021, registered with Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 325, 147, 149 and 506 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 20. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.